# Dear folks who wish you owned your own home



## vraiblonde

Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?

You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.

There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.

There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.

A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.

And you'll OWN it!

You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.

Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.

Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.

If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!

Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.

So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.  

And NOW is the time.


----------



## Booboo3604

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.




Preach it Sistah!  And it didn't take you 45 threads to make your point which one can always appreciate!


----------



## Vince

I saw the title and immediately started


----------



## smoothmarine187

I have tons of money saved up, but I prefer to throw it all away by renting


----------



## warneckutz

smoothmarine187 said:


> I have tons of money saved up, but I prefer to throw it all away by renting



Ditto


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?


What market indicators do you follow that indicate that the market will pick up?


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> What market indicators do you follow that indicate that the market will pick up?



Are you predicting that we will fall into a major depression and real estate will plunge to record lows and never recover?  And then maybe we'll be taken over by the Taliban and live in caves for the rest of our lives?


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Are you predicting that we will fall into a major depression and real estate will plunge to record lows and never recover?


Nope.

What market indicators do you follow?


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.


No end in sight: Housing in freefall until credit loosens and supply recedes, experts say

NEW YORK: House prices may still have a long way to fall.

Across much of the nation, home values are dropping — even those backed by solid mortgages — and banks are repossessing more every day. Most experts say the dive won't hit bottom for another year and only after excess inventory is sharply reduced and credit markets improve.

More government intervention may be needed, too, if the free market system doesn't work quick enough.

"The housing value crisis is spreading and deepening," said David Abromowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "It has gone way beyond subprime borrowers stretched too far with bad loans and now has clearly extended into the housing markets more broadly."

U.S. home prices dropped 8.9 percent in the final quarter of 2007 compared with a year ago, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index released Tuesday. That marked the steepest decline in the index's 20-year history.


No end in sight: Housing in freefall until credit loosens and supply recedes, experts say - International Herald Tribune


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> No end in sight: Housing in freefall until credit loosens and supply recedes, experts say





> Most experts say the dive won't hit bottom for another year and only after excess inventory is sharply reduced and credit markets improve.


How is supply supposed to receded and excess inventory be reduced if the media keeps warning people not to buy houses?  Are these houses just going to magically vanish into thin air?



> Across much of the nation, home values are dropping — even those backed by solid mortgages — and banks are repossessing more every day


But banks are not repossessing homes with solid mortgages that are being paid in a timely fashion.  Banks only repossess if you default on your loan, not just because your home's value drops.  Home value only affects you if you're selling or refinancing.  And if people would have done their homework and been at least slightly knowledgeable when they got their loan and purchased the home in the first place, they wouldn't have these problems.



> More government intervention may be needed, too, if the free market system doesn't work quick enough.


That's pretty scary, when you think about it.  Irresponsible home buyers got in over their heads and now the government is supposed to bail them out?  How about if you rack up too much credit card debt with high interest?  Should the taxpayers have to bail you out of that, too?


----------



## BuddyLee

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now. Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't. Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900. Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low. Sell high. Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!! Renting is for losers! The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.


If only I had the money.


----------



## vraiblonde

BuddyLee said:


> If only I had the money.



Well, here's your tip:  don't get an adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgage.  I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not.  In some cases they make sense, but not on a regular house that you plan on living in for any length of time.


----------



## Larry Gude

*The people...*



vraiblonde said:


> Well, here's your tip:  don't get an adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgage. * I thought everyone knew that,* but apparently not.  In some cases they make sense, but not on a regular house that you plan on living in for any length of time.



...that did that, by and large, are folks who planned on flipping the house, investing, which is also another name for gambling. Adjustables offered the lowest possible monthly cash outlay until it came time to hit it big. 

Oops.


----------



## BuddyLee

vraiblonde said:


> Well, here's your tip: don't get an adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgage. I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not. In some cases they make sense, but not on a regular house that you plan on living in for any length of time.


I'll keep that in mind.  

I have to ensure I have plan A (new job) complete before I move onto plan B (home).  As for now, I'm saving everything I can and am thinking about throwing a bulk of it into a CD.

I'd like to get into investing into the stock market one day but I have not a clue where to start.


----------



## vraiblonde

Larry Gude said:


> ...that did that, by and large, are folks who planned on flipping the house, investing, which is also another name for gambling.



By and large, and that's what those types of loans are for.  But there are a handful of dorksteins who got an ARM or interest-only because they wanted more house than they could afford, and this would give them a lower payment.  They didn't think about the future, just wanted what they wanted NOW whether they could pay for it or not.  These are the dummies that Patch and Renter keep finding stories about.

I fear for this country when someone's personal financial irresponsibility turns into a need for government intervention.


----------



## Larry Gude

*It's here...*



vraiblonde said:


> By and large, and that's what those types of loans are for.  But there are a handful of dorksteins who got an ARM or interest-only because they wanted more house than they could afford, and this would give them a lower payment.  They didn't think about the future, just wanted what they wanted NOW whether they could pay for it or not.  These are the dummies that Patch and Renter keep finding stories about.
> 
> I fear for this country when someone's* personal financial irresponsibility turns into a need for government intervention*.



...right now. 

Socialized medicine used to be a dirty word 15 years ago and every step towards it was hidden in language and arguments that said it was not socialized medicine. Now, two leading candidates are actively fighting over whose plan is the better, MORE socialized than the other and the other party basically accepts it as a fate accomplis.  

It's really nothing new and is, in many ways, far less 'socialized' than what FDR did in the 1930's. We have federally guaranteed bank accounts and our base retirement plan has become a right. Obama said the other night that he wants to help people and he'd just met someone who's mortgage just doubled. No one batted an eye. No one said "BS! How can that be? Why should we help someone that crazy? Doubled!?"


----------



## Lilypad

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.



Can you loan me the 20% cash down payment? TIA


----------



## vraiblonde

Lilypad said:


> Can you loan me the 20% cash down payment? TIA



No, dear.  You will have to do like the rest of us did and either A) Save it up; or B) Get an 80/20 loan.


----------



## Lilypad

vraiblonde said:


> No, dear.  You will have to do like the rest of us did and either A) Save it up; or B) Get an 80/20 loan.



Hard work and a great interest rate 11 yrs ago got me my dream home.  I am looking for a get-away home now...


----------



## vraiblonde

Lilypad said:


> Hard work and a great interest rate 11 yrs ago got me my dream home.  I am looking for a get-away home now...





Where are you looking?  Beach?  Mountains?


----------



## toppick08

vraiblonde said:


> By and large, and that's what those types of loans are for.  But there are a handful of dorksteins who got an ARM or interest-only because they wanted more house than they could afford, and this would give them a lower payment.  They didn't think about the future, just wanted what they wanted NOW whether they could pay for it or not.  These are the dummies that Patch and Renter keep finding stories about.
> 
> I fear for this country when someone's personal financial irresponsibility turns into a need for government intervention.



Amen.


----------



## beerlover

vraiblonde said:


> ...There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.....
> 
> And NOW is the time.



Don't forget to add the PMI and Insurance, taxes, etc.  My mortgage for $275K at 6.875% comes out to just over $2300/month total.

I think rates will be cut again and I also think housing prices have a ways to fall yet and opportunities will get better for buyers in the coming months but it IS a great time to buy.  I wish I could have bought now rather than 2 years ago at the peak of the bubble... DOH!


----------



## vraiblonde

beerlover said:


> I wish I could have bought now rather than 2 years ago at the peak of the bubble... DOH!



Tell me about it - I bought a year ago, right before the bubble burst.  

But what the heck.  I love my house, I can afford it, and I'm pretty happy here.


----------



## kwillia

vraiblonde said:


> Tell me about it - I bought a year ago, right before the bubble burst.
> 
> But what the heck.  I love my house, I can afford it, and I'm pretty happy here.



My sis just bought her first house in January and she is thrilled. She can afford it, got a house that was perfect for her, and plans to be there for decades.  Prior to buying, she was renting an apartment... she certainly is much better off now.


----------



## MMDad

kwillia said:


> she certainly is much better off now.





Rates are great now. I just got 5.5%, no points. Can't get much better than that!


----------



## Lugnut

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.



SOMEBODY just got her Real Estate license!!


----------



## Cowgirl

We're working towards buying...this tax $ is going to be a big help.


----------



## vraiblonde

Lugnut said:


> SOMEBODY just got her Real Estate license!!



Who?


----------



## thurley42

Dork Stain is my new favorite Term of Endearment....


----------



## somdrenter

beerlover said:


> I wish I could have bought now rather than 2 years ago at the peak of the bubble... DOH!


So, you see some advantage of not buying at the peak of the bubble? That’s more than most are willing to admit.


----------



## Warron

Sorry, but your quoted morgages are pure bs.   If you want to compare to the cost of renting, you need to include things like pmi, insurance, taxes, hoa fees, and maintenance costs.   Not too mention that you make no statement about down payments or closing costs.   

Since most renters don't currently have a property to sell to cover the costs of a large down payment (up to $60k on that 300k property), they would end up paying a much higher monthly morgage.  The real cost of your $300k house is well over the $2300 a month stated by beerlover.   Or about double what a decent 2 bedroom townhouse rents for right now.


----------



## mAlice

vraiblonde said:


> Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill



:snort:


----------



## mAlice

thurley42 said:


> Dork Stain is my new favorite Term of Endearment....




I'm glad I read this thread.  I would have missed that.


----------



## Agee

somdrenter said:


> More government intervention may be needed, too, if the free market system doesn't work quick enough.
> 
> "The housing value crisis is spreading and deepening," said David Abromowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "It has gone way beyond subprime borrowers stretched too far with bad loans and now has clearly extended into the housing markets more broadly."


 
The government interviened alright. They lowered the prime rate, thus giving the large banks an opportunity to acquire money at a lower rate. This was suppose to ease credit burden and kick-start spending.

Guess what, the same banks that made less than desireable loans are now putting the clamps on the money they just purchased at the lower rates. It has becoame harder and harder for people, even with good credit ratings to secure loans. So, again the governmnet steps in to help the "average joe" and who benifits, the big banks, go figure!


----------



## vraiblonde

Warron said:


> Sorry, but your quoted morgages are pure bs.   If you want to compare to the cost of renting, you need to include things like pmi, insurance, taxes, hoa fees, and maintenance costs.   Not too mention that you make no statement about down payments or closing costs.
> 
> Since most renters don't currently have a property to sell to cover the costs of a large down payment (up to $60k on that 300k property), they would end up paying a much higher monthly morgage.  The real cost of your $300k house is well over the $2300 a month stated by beerlover.   Or about double what a decent 2 bedroom townhouse rents for right now.



Well, I think I know what I'm paying every month, Warron.  I got a 100% loan for my $299,900 house, paid $6k in closing, no HOA, and my monthly mortgage is $2300 PITI.

Sure, I could have rented some townhouse for less, and gotten a little junky apartment for even less than that, but it wasn't even a consideration.  Putting up with landlords, strangers sharing the walls of my house, gotta keep the noise down or they complain, no parking when you want to have guests over, can't so much as plant flowers without permission, no pets, no room, etc, etc, etc.

Some people aren't interested in owning a home for whatever reason. That's fine and their business.  But most people DO want to own a home because of the reasons mentioned above, plus they are actually purchasing something instead of just renting it.  In 12 or 13 years, if all goes the same, I will own my house outright while others are still paying rent.


----------



## beerlover

somdrenter said:


> So, you see some advantage of not buying at the peak of the bubble? That’s more than most are willing to admit.



Yep.  Everyone kept droning on and on about throwing my money away by renting and that I needed to get into the housing market so I could start growing some wealth and housing always goes up, up, up, etc., etc., etc.  So I jumped in and scraped up everything I could to buy just about the cheapest house I could find that I would allow my family to live in (it was a fixer-upper) and it is too much for me.  The way things are today, I could rent a very similar house for almost $1,000 less than I'm paying to "own".  

I miss renting.  If I lived in an area besides the DC metro, where I could get a decent house for a realistic price, I would love to own.  This area is just crazy anywhere within about 100 mile radius of DC.


----------



## MMDad

vraiblonde said:


> Putting up with landlords, strangers sharing the walls of my house, gotta keep the noise down or they complain, no parking when you want to have guests over, can't so much as plant flowers without permission, no pets, no room, etc, etc, etc.


Don't forget no smoking in your own apartment. It's coming soon to The Socialist Republic of Maryland.


----------



## beerlover

Having just said all that, I have to add that people who bought before the bubble and then sold during the bubble made out like bandits and benefitted in ways that they never could have if they had rented.  And if the housing prices keep falling and interest rates stay so low, this will be a great year for buying a house if you can find one that you can afford.  If the numbers work, owning a house is great.  I just bit off more than I could realistically chew, but all that was available was huge mouthfulls, if that makes sense.


----------



## Cowgirl

MMDad said:


> Don't forget no smoking in your own apartment. It's coming soon to The Socialist Republic of Maryland.



What do you mean coming soon?  There are already landlords that don't allow smoking.


----------



## MMDad

Cowgirl said:


> What do you mean coming soon?  There are already landlords that don't allow smoking.



No problem with that. Free market at its best. Just wait until the state takes away the choice.


----------



## vraiblonde

beerlover said:


> If I lived in an area besides the DC metro, where I could get a decent house for a realistic price, I would love to own.  This area is just crazy anywhere within about 100 mile radius of DC.



Maryland _is_ crazy with its housing prices.  Whenever I go somewhere, I always like to pick up a Homes & Land to see what houses are going for in that area.  It always shocks me what you can get in other states for what you pay in MD.


----------



## MMDad

vraiblonde said:


> Maryland _is_ crazy with its housing prices.  Whenever I go somewhere, I always like to pick up a Homes & Land to see what houses are going for in that area.  It always shocks me what you can get in other states for what you pay in MD.



Pick one up next time you're in California. You'll be ecstatic over Maryland prices.


----------



## Cowgirl

vraiblonde said:


> Maryland _is_ crazy with its housing prices.  Whenever I go somewhere, I always like to pick up a Homes & Land to see what houses are going for in that area.  It always shocks me what you can get in other states for what you pay in MD.



I'm looking at 10 acres in NC w/ a house for $75.


----------



## vraiblonde

MMDad said:


> Pick one up next time you're in California. You'll be ecstatic over Maryland prices.



Actually, I felt much better when I saw prices in the Keys.


----------



## somdrenter

Warron said:


> Sorry, but your quoted morgages are pure bs.   If you want to compare to the cost of renting, you need to include things like pmi, insurance, taxes, hoa fees, and maintenance costs.   Not too mention that you make no statement about down payments or closing costs.





> Now that the gilded forecasts have proved spectacularly wrong, homeowners don't know what to think about real estate's future. The dizzying rise sure didn't make sense. And the sudden slump doesn't seem any more logical. How can you make reasonable financial plans for the future if you have no idea what your house is worth?
> 
> In most markets people won't lay out much more in monthly costs to own a house or condo than they would to rent a similar property unless they expect a huge profit when they sell. Indeed, speculators chasing quick profits did a lot to inflate the recent bubble.
> 
> But once the fervor fades, prices must fall to restore their normal, long-term relationship with rents. Rents exercise a kind of inevitable gravitational pull on prices. The ratio of prices to rents "behaves much like price/earnings ratios for stocks," says Yale economist Robert Shiller. "Like P/Es, price-to-rent ratios are mean-reverting." In other words, while prices soar from time to time, sending the ratio to exceptional heights, sooner or later the relationship is bound to return to its historical average.



Real estate: Buy, sell, or hold? - Nov. 7, 2007


----------



## vraiblonde

> In most markets people won't lay out much more in monthly costs to own a house or condo than they would to rent a similar property unless they expect a huge profit when they sell. *Indeed, speculators chasing quick profits did a lot to inflate the recent bubble.*


Hello?

I'm curious how many homeowners bought their house to make a profit when they sell.  Most people buy homes to live in them, not use them for investment purposes.


----------



## Agee

vraiblonde said:


> Hello?
> 
> I'm curious how many homeowners bought their house to make a profit when they sell. Most people buy homes to live in them, not use them for investment purposes.


 
...and the nice tax breaks! 
Let's hope they don't screw with that benifit.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Hello?
> 
> I'm curious how many homeowners bought their house to make a profit when they sell.  Most people buy homes to live in them, not use them for investment purposes.


Either to live in or bought on spec, given the proliferation of toxic mortgages, the outcome is still the same.


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Either to live in or bought on spec, given the proliferation of toxic mortgages, the outcome is still the same.



Be it houses, cars, bling or Beenie babies, stupid people have been separated from their money for eons and you can't stop it. Not everyone has a toxic mortgage.  I would say that they are a significant minority yet you keep painting this with a broad brush.  Give it up.

Sincerely,
5.5% fixed, 30 year, $1400 a month PITI, 2200sq foot, 1.5 acres


----------



## dems4me

Pete said:


> Be it houses, cars, bling or Beenie babies, stupid people have been separated from their money for eons and you can't stop it. Not everyone has a toxic mortgage.  I would say that they are a significant minority yet you keep painting this with a broad brush.  Give it up.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 5.5% fixed, 30 year, $1400 a month PITI, 2200sq foot, 1.5 acres



What is a PITI? :shrug: I saw vrai use that earlier and thought she meant PITA :shrug: I'm doing well on my new savings plan of 2008 and have set my goal on buying a house before year end. What is a PITI? :shrug:


----------



## Pete

dems4me said:


> What is a PITI? :shrug: I saw vrai use that earlier and thought she meant PITA :shrug: I'm doing well on my new savings plan of 2008 and have set my goal on buying a house before year end. What is a PITI? :shrug:



Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance.  The 4 elements of a typical house payment.


----------



## KWAK

vraiblonde said:


> Well, here's your tip:  don't get an adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgage.  I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not.  In some cases they make sense, but not on a regular house that you plan on living in for any length of time.



One of the mortgage giants recently decided to stop purchasing Alt A IO loans - insiders say to expect IO loans to be less of option for people trying to get more house than they can afford!


----------



## vraiblonde

HalfAngel said:


> insiders say to expect IO loans to be less of option for people trying to get more house than they can afford!



That's probably a good idea.  I though I was a financial idiot but I'm a genius compared to some of these people out there.  When I was 24, my ex and I bought our house and talked to both sets of parents, plus friends who owned homes, all of whom gave us excellent advice, part of which was "don't go with an ARM".

It never occurred to me that so many people would fly blind with something as important as buying a home.  That takes a special kind of dumbbell.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> I would say that they are a significant minority yet you keep painting this with a broad brush.  Give it up.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 5.5% fixed, 30 year, $1400 a month PITI, 2200sq foot, 1.5 acres


Absolutely Pete. They are a minority. But, as it seems, that’s all it takes. 

Fannie Mae posted a 4th Qtr 07 $3.6 Billion loss. This minority is causing significant losses. Say this minority is 1%. What if it were 1.2% or 1.5%?

Sincerely,
Saving almost $1000 a month by renting.


----------



## KWAK

vraiblonde said:


> That's probably a good idea.  I though I was a financial idiot but I'm a genius compared to some of these people out there.  When I was 24, my ex and I bought our house and talked to both sets of parents, plus friends who owned homes, all of whom gave us excellent advice, part of which was "don't go with an ARM".
> 
> It never occurred to me that so many people would fly blind with something as important as buying a home.  That takes a special kind of dumbbell.



I wholeheartedly agree!!  Obviously, I am an "insider" and have worked for this financial giant (as referred in the media) for 10 years now - I work with the riskiest stuff out there, most risk layers that can be done - what I see in a day (well, used to see in a day) is incredible!  And I handle billion dollar deals!  It was no wonder what happened in the market did!  There are A LOT of dumbbell's out there!


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> Absolutely Pete. They are a minority. But, as it seems, that’s all it takes.



And do you, Somdrenter, think the taxpayers should be bailing out this small percentage of people who, through their own stupidity and irresponsibility, got into a financial jam?

Yes or no.

And, even better, should we the taxpayers be bailing out real estate investors and speculators who got into a financial jam because they gambled and lost?

Yes or no.


----------



## KWAK

somdrenter said:


> Absolutely Pete. They are a minority. But, as it seems, that’s all it takes.
> 
> Fannie Mae posted a 4th Qtr 07 $3.6 Billion loss. This minority is causing significant losses. Say this minority is 1%. What if it were 1.2% or 1.5%?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Saving almost $1000 a month by renting.



Don't forget this part. . . .

"On a positive note, we grew our guaranty fee income by more than 19 percent to $5.1 billion, as our single-family guaranty book grew 15 percent and our multifamily guaranty book grew by more than 22 percent."


----------



## MMDad

vraiblonde said:


> And do you, Somdrenter, think the taxpayers should be bailing out this small percentage of people who, through their own stupidity and irresponsibility, got into a financial jam?
> 
> Yes or no.
> 
> And, even better, should we the taxpayers be bailing out real estate investors and speculators who got into a financial jam because they gambled and lost?
> 
> Yes or no.



Don't forget:

Should we the taxpayers be bailing out mortgage companies that gave loans to people who could not afford them?


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Absolutely Pete. They are a minority. But, as it seems, that’s all it takes.
> 
> Fannie Mae posted a 4th Qtr 07 $3.6 Billion loss. This minority is causing significant losses. Say this minority is 1%. What if it were 1.2% or 1.5%?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Saving almost $1000 a month by renting.



Ah but I will be paying $1400 a month for only 20 more years but you will be paying more forever.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> And do you, Somdrenter, think the taxpayers should be bailing out this small percentage of people who, through their own stupidity and irresponsibility, got into a financial jam?
> 
> Yes or no.
> 
> And, even better, should we the taxpayers be bailing out real estate investors and speculators who got into a financial jam because they gambled and lost?
> 
> Yes or no.


No and no. Absolutely not. Not one penny, nadda, none.

Furthermore, someone mentioned tax breaks a few pages back. These folks that are/will get government bailouts and/or will have their lender renegotiate the terms of their loans; do these folks deserve tax breaks? I think not…


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> Ah but I will be paying $1400 a month for only 20 more years but you will be paying more forever.


Sorry Pete. No one is advocating renting for 20 years, much less forever.


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Sorry Pete. No one is advocating renting for 20 years, much less forever.



So then you wait until you are 50 and buy a house on a 30 year fixed and end up paying until your 70's or 80's.  Take your pick.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> Ah but I will be paying $1400 a month for only 20 more years but you will be paying more forever.


Speaking of which...when did you buy??


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> So then you wait until you are 50 and buy a house on a 30 year fixed and end up paying until your 70's or 80's.  Take your pick.


Sorry Pete, no one is advocating renting long term. By the way, when did you buy?


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Sorry Pete, no one is advocating renting long term. By the way, when did you buy?



2003

How old are you?


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> 2003
> 
> How old are you?


You’re on to something here Pete. I think I’d like to purchase something on 6 June 2003, but wait a sec, my time machine is down and I wasn’t living here in 03.

Old enough to know better.


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> No and no. Absolutely not. Not one penny, nadda, none.
> 
> Furthermore, someone mentioned tax breaks a few pages back. These folks that are/will get government bailouts and/or will have their lender renegotiate the terms of their loans; do these folks deserve tax breaks? I think not…



Good, then we agree on something.

However, due to the high coverage the media is giving this situation, and the hysteria they are generating by suggesting that foreclosures are happening to everyone, there are folks who are insisting that government "do something".  And Bush is such a weener that he says, "Okay," and gives it credence.

So this "crisis" is media generated, just like when they said that AIDS can happen to anyone and would drag out some kid who got it through a transfusion, even though that's a million to one shot, scaring everyone to death and creating a panic.

It's a sham, and it disappoints me that you've not only bought into it, but are perpetuating it.


----------



## Baja28

vraiblonde said:


> Good, then we agree on something.
> 
> However, due to the high coverage the media is giving this situation, and the hysteria they are generating by suggesting that foreclosures are happening to everyone, there are folks who are insisting that government "do something".  And Bush is such a weener that he says, "Okay," and gives it credence.
> 
> So this "crisis" is media generated, just like when they said that AIDS can happen to anyone and would drag out some kid who got it through a transfusion, even though that's a million to one shot, scaring everyone to death and creating a panic.
> 
> It's a sham, and it disappoints me that you've not only bought into it, but are perpetuating it.


:bittercuzhe'sstuckrentingathisage:


----------



## Lugnut

Baja28 said:


> :bittercuzhe'sstuckrentingathisage:


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> So this "crisis" is media generated,


And here’s where we disagree. When home prices stray from fundamentals and people buy more home than they can afford (especially with toxic mortgages) eventually prices will revert to the mean. Simple economics. And given the resent stats, it doesn’t have to be the majority of home owners to cause a negative effect The media did not write the loan terms, and does not issue NODs.

Furthermore, for quite some time the only people the MSM would quote regarding real estate, were those in the REI. They still do to an extent, but I don't think they are as willing to drink the cool-aid.


----------



## MMDad

somdrenter said:


> Furthermore, for quite some time the only people the MSM would quote regarding real estate, were those in the REI. They still do to an extent, but I don't think they are as willing to drink the cool-aid.



But now the media is showing us examples of people who are paying the price. Speculators who lost it all. Stupid people who bought way too much house by getting interest only loans.

Show us the effect on normal people, not people who gambled and lost or stupid people who never should have gotten a loan in the first place.

It would be interesting to see statistics on how sick the market really is if we could exclude those people who do not deserve our sympathy.


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> You’re on to something here Pete. I think I’d like to purchase something on 6 June 2003, but wait a sec, my time machine is down and I wasn’t living here in 03.
> 
> Old enough to know better.



The real point is when I bought I made a spreadsheet and did a bunch of research and bought what I could afford.  I did not and would not buy more than I could afford of fudge the numbers with 80/20 interest only, ARM just to get into a house.  

I was smart and bought what I could afford right then and it was $100K less than I was approved for.  If I was buying today or a year ago I would have done the same thing.  Maybe I would have rented, maybe I would be in a different house, who knows.

Fools and their money are soon parted and there is no degree of government intervention that can stop it.  The auto industry has been screwing people for decades.  Rolling in upside down parts of old loans, marking up, 100% financing, high risk loans yet it is not a big deal?


----------



## dems4me

MMDad said:


> But now the media is showing us examples of people who are paying the price. Speculators who lost it all. Stupid people who bought way too much house by getting interest only loans.
> 
> Show us the effect on normal people, not people who gambled and lost or stupid people who never should have gotten a loan in the first place.
> 
> It would be interesting to see statistics on how sick the market really is if we could exclude those people who do not deserve our sympathy.




I agree, I have absolutely NO sympathy for those freakn' idiots that bought a house knowing full well they can't afford it and I get even further enraged at the idea of them expecting a bailout for their interminable stupidity. I didn't run out and buy a house I couldn't afford, why should I now have to pay for their mistakes with my tax dollars? I didn't even get the benefit of living in my own home or any of the perks - not every one was stupid. UFB!!!   Or maybe I was just as stupid for NOT having done the same and hope for a bailout.  I still havn't decided but I did what was right and to me that's NOT buying something you CAN'T afford then expect others to bail you out.  So I'm thinking I did the right thing but if they get the bailout, I will be very pizzed. 

I have about the same amount of sympathy for those that pop out kids left and right that can't afford them and then expect the government (my tax dollars) to bail them out for their stupidity. 

I'm done now.


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> people buy more home than they can afford (especially with toxic mortgages)



Nobody forces them at gunpoint and makes them get a particular loan type.  It is completely in their control.  Mortgage brokers will typically go over every option - mine did - with the pros and cons.  Then it's up to you.

If we weren't freaking out, we'd call this a "correction" and it would be no big deal.  I know it's too late for me, but I'd like to see housing prices fall to a normal rate instead of those crazy inflated prices they were sitting at.  If my house is still worth the $299,900 I paid for it 10 years from now, I'll still be living in it and it won't make a bit of difference to me.

This is very similar to the "dotcom crisis" in the 90's.  All these people jumped on the tech bandwagon and bought stock in worthless companies, then lost their money when the company went belly up.


----------



## kom526

vraiblonde said:


> This is very similar to the "dotcom crisis" in the 90's.  All these people jumped on the tech bandwagon and bought stock in worthless companies, then lost their money when the company went belly up.



saladofthemonth.com crushed my portfolio.


----------



## cattitude

dems4me said:


> I agree, I have absolutely NO sympathy for those freakn' idiots that bought a house knowing full well they can't afford it and I get even further enraged at the idea of them expecting a bailout for their interminable stupidity. I didn't run out and buy a house I couldn't afford, why should I now have to pay for their mistakes with my tax dollars? I didn't even get the benefit of living in my own home or any of the perks - not every one was stupid. UFB!!!   Or maybe I was just as stupid for NOT having done the same and hope for a bailout.  I still havn't decided but I did what was right and to me that's NOT buying something you CAN'T afford then expect others to bail you out.  So I'm thinking I did the right thing but if they get the bailout, I will be very pizzed.
> 
> I have about the same amount of sympathy for those that pop out kids left and right that can't afford them and then expect the government (my tax dollars) to bail them out for their stupidity.
> 
> I'm done now.



Make sure you vote for Obama


----------



## dems4me

cattitude said:


> Make sure you vote for Obama



No Catt, I'm still not a republican  Although I love Sharon's siggy.


----------



## somdrenter

MMDad said:


> Show us the effect on normal people, not people who gambled and lost or stupid people who never should have gotten a loan in the first place.


One effect is the devaluation of the dollar. Helicopter Ben, in an attempt to bail out Wall Street, has the printing presses running overtime.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> I was smart and bought what I could afford right then and it was $100K less than I was approved for.  If I was buying today or a year ago I would have done the same thing.  Maybe I would have rented, maybe I would be in a different house, who knows.


What the heck Pete? What do you think I’m doing? I’ve ran the numbers, I watch the market, and I have planned accordingly. No one is suggesting otherwise.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> If we weren't freaking out, we'd call this a "correction" and it would be no big deal.  I know it's too late for me, but I'd like to see housing prices fall to a normal rate instead of those crazy inflated prices they were sitting at.  If my house is still worth the $299,900 I paid for it 10 years from now, I'll still be living in it and it won't make a bit of difference to me.
> 
> This is very similar to the "dotcom crisis" in the 90's.  All these people jumped on the tech bandwagon and bought stock in worthless companies, then lost their money when the company went belly up.


I call it a correction. Many people call it a correction. It’s just that after such a large run up that strayed from fundamentals, well, expect a large correction.


----------



## MMDad

somdrenter said:


> One effect is the devaluation of the dollar. Helicopter Ben, in an attempt to bail out Wall Street, has the printing presses running overtime.



 Everything is caused by the "mortgage crisis." Next you're going to tell it's causing Global Warming.

I heard that Bobby Cutts killed his girlfriend because he had a balloon payment coming up.


----------



## crabcake

dems4me said:


> No Catt, I'm still not a republican  Although I love Sharon's siggy.



I was beginning to wonder, too, after reading your post. 



dems4me said:


> I agree, I have absolutely NO sympathy for those freakn' idiots that bought a house knowing full well they can't afford it and I get even further enraged at the idea of them expecting a bailout for their interminable stupidity. I didn't run out and buy a house I couldn't afford, why should I now have to pay for their mistakes with my tax dollars? I didn't even get the benefit of living in my own home or any of the perks - not every one was stupid. UFB!!!  Or maybe I was just as stupid for NOT having done the same and hope for a bailout. I still havn't decided but I did what was right and to me that's NOT buying something you CAN'T afford then expect others to bail you out.  So I'm thinking I did the right thing but if they get the bailout, I will be very pizzed.
> 
> I have about the same amount of sympathy for those that pop out kids left and right that can't afford them and then expect the government (my tax dollars) to bail them out for their stupidity.
> 
> I'm done now.


----------



## cattitude

crabcake said:


> I was beginning to wonder, too, after reading your post.




I bet if she really looked at all the issues, she'd find out she's NOT a democrat.


----------



## crabcake

cattitude said:


> I bet if she really looked at all the issues, she'd find out she's NOT a democrat.



So we shouldn't be surprised to see "Reps4me" show up on here soon?


----------



## Baja28

dems4me said:


> I have about the same amount of sympathy for those that pop out kids left and right that can't afford them and then expect the government (my tax dollars) to bail them out for their stupidity.
> 
> I'm done now.


 


Shuddup Mike, Shuddup!!


----------



## somdrenter

MMDad said:


> Everything is caused by the "mortgage crisis." Next you're going to tell it's causing Global Warming.
> 
> I heard that Bobby Cutts killed his girlfriend because he had a balloon payment coming up.


You gotta be kidding? Come on Dad, it wasn’t but a few months ago that the fed was slashing rates, sometimes twice in a two week period, it was all over the news. The fed was/is slashing rates because of the housing/credit/mortgage debacle. Each time they slash rates, what happens to the value of the dollar? ECON 101 dude.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Nobody forces them at gunpoint and makes them get a particular loan type.  It is completely in their control.


Exactly, but how then is this media generated? Did the media hold them at gunpoint?


vraiblonde said:


> So this "crisis" is media generated


----------



## crabcake

somdrenter said:


> Exactly, but how then is this media generated? Did the media hold them at gunpoint?



They're the ones making the big stink out of it ... showcasing the stupid saps who did this to themselves, which generates buzz and worry among idiots who don't know better than to see the forest for what it is. :shrug:

Oh, and it doesn't help when people keep dogging out how crappy an idea home ownership is.


----------



## somdrenter

crabcake said:


> They're the ones making the big stink out of it ... showcasing the stupid saps who did this to themselves, which generates buzz and worry among idiots who don't know better than to see the forest for what it is. :shrug:
> 
> Oh, and it doesn't help when people keep dogging out how crappy an idea home ownership is.


Yea, billions and billions and billions of lender losses, hundreds of lenders closing shop, government bail outs and rising foreclosure rates. 

Nothing to see here folks, move along….


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Yea, billions and billions and billions of lender losses, hundreds of lenders closing shop, government bail outs and rising foreclosure rates.
> 
> Nothing to see here folks, move along….



When you figure the average house probably tips the quarter million mark billions if not a huge reach.  Lets look at the billions and billions they make.  Over the course of a 30 year fixed you pay back 2.5 times what you borrowed.  Figuring that 2% or less are defaulted that mean 98% are pouring cash into those companies every month.

Sure it is going to hurt a little but they will recover and hopefully tighten up their lending habits.


----------



## dems4me

crabcake said:


> I was beginning to wonder, too, after reading your post.





cattitude said:


> I bet if she really looked at all the issues, she'd find out she's NOT a democrat.





Baja28 said:


> Shuddup Mike, Shuddup!!




Would you believe I was just pimping for green:shrug:  


 Really, y'all have NO IDEA how long I've been trying to bite my tongue on the whole home loan  bailout crap on this forum  especially as I was one of those that was tempted but knew better.  That's just pure nonsense whether its republicans, democrats, girl scouts or the Pope suggesting it - its just wrong.  Also still pizzed about the cigg tax special sessions crap and the nonsmoking in ALL restaurants. Don't even get me started on that crap


----------



## dems4me

crabcake said:


> They're the ones making the big stink out of it ... showcasing the stupid saps who did this to themselves, which generates buzz and worry among idiots who don't know better than to see the forest for what it is. :shrug:
> 
> Oh, and it doesn't help when people keep dogging out how crappy an idea home ownership is.



 100%

I will take it one step further though, I think they should give a bail out to all of the folks that did the RIGHT thing and didn't add to this problem  Its almost as if they are getting a "get out of jail free" card for doing something incredibly irresponsible and stupid meanwhile our tax payers are paying for this "get out of jail free" card.  Its just wrong.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> When you figure the average house probably tips the quarter million mark billions if not a huge reach.


Pete, might wanna check those numbers, it's not quite a quarter million.


----------



## Bird Dog

dems4me said:


> 100%
> 
> I will take it one step further though, I think they should give a bail out to all of the folks that did the RIGHT thing and didn't add to this problem  Its almost as if they are getting a "get out of jail free" card for doing something incredibly irresponsible and stupid meanwhile our tax payers are paying for this "get out of jail free" card.  Its just wrong.



Your get out of bail/jail  for doing the right thing is the market. Prices are getting back to normal with only those worth of loans (good credit, some down payment money, etc), interest rates becoming resonable.

There will alway be renters and owners. Just finished a great book about Rome during the ceasars and renting and owning was an issue back then so welcome back to the future.

Dems4me to Rep4me  I like that


----------



## dems4me

Bird Dog said:


> Dems4me to Rep4me  I like that




Ain't happening, short of me loosing a bet.  It was bad enough when I lost the election bet with Jazz a while back and had to have republican avs...   don't know that I'd wager my screen name too


----------



## Bird Dog

dems4me said:


> *Ain't happening, short of me loosing a bet*.  It was bad enough when I lost the election bet with Jazz a while back and had to have republican avs...   don't know that I'd wager my screen name too



HMMMM!


----------



## dems4me

Bird Dog said:


> HMMMM!



BTW, did I mention there has to be something in it for me?


----------



## Bird Dog

dems4me said:


> BTW, did I mention there has to be something in it for me?



I guess I have until November to figure that out


----------



## dems4me

Bird Dog said:


> I guess I have until November to figure that out



Ain't happening, I just do football, and the election that ONE time  I learned my lesson.  However... March Madness is coming up ...then I'll fully expect a government bail out for my gamble


----------



## MMDad

dems4me said:


> BTW, did I mention there has to be something in it for me?



Your prize can be Aps.


----------



## dems4me

MMDad said:


> Your prize can be Aps.



We are pushing this whole asp birthday boy thing a little too far


----------



## crabcake

somdrenter said:


> Yea, billions and billions and billions of lender losses, hundreds of lenders closing shop, government bail outs and rising foreclosure rates.
> 
> Nothing to see here folks, move along….



:shrug: Stupidity runs amok ... and our population isn't shrinking. Don't blame me. I bought all 3 of the houses I've own the responsible way. No one is bailing me out.


----------



## somdrenter

MMDad said:


> Show us the effect on normal people, not people who gambled and lost or stupid people who never should have gotten a loan in the first place.





MMDad said:


> Everything is caused by the "mortgage crisis." Next you're going to tell it's causing Global Warming.


Brutal sell off on Wall Street
Dow tumbles *315 points, the second worst day of the year for stocks*, after AIG's big loss and UBS's outlook on financials.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks tumbled Friday, in the second worst day of 2008, *after AIG's record loss *added to worries about the financial sector and more weak economic news intensified fears about a recession….

…AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) reported a steep *$5.3 billion quarterly loss *after the market close Thursday and said it took an *$11 billion writedown *related to big losses in investments *tied to bad mortgage bets*. Shares of the Dow component tumbled 7% Friday….

…Brokerage UBS said financial firms could end up facing *$600 billion in losses *as the *credit crisis *continues to unfold. Banks, brokers and insurers have already lost more than *$160 billion related to bad mortgage bets.* UBS also cut its first-quarter earnings estimates on a number of investment banks….

Stocks get slammed on recession fears - Feb. 29, 2008


----------



## foodcritic

*home buying*



somdrenter said:


> Brutal sell off on Wall Street
> Dow tumbles *315 points, the second worst day of the year for stocks*, after AIG's big loss and UBS's outlook on financials.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks tumbled Friday, in the second worst day of 2008, *after AIG's record loss *added to worries about the financial sector and more weak economic news intensified fears about a recession….
> 
> …AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) reported a steep *$5.3 billion quarterly loss *after the market close Thursday and said it took an *$11 billion writedown *related to big losses in investments *tied to bad mortgage bets*. Shares of the Dow component tumbled 7% Friday….
> 
> …Brokerage UBS said financial firms could end up facing *$600 billion in losses *as the *credit crisis *continues to unfold. Banks, brokers and insurers have already lost more than *$160 billion related to bad mortgage bets.* UBS also cut its first-quarter earnings estimates on a number of investment banks….
> 
> Stocks get slammed on recession fears - Feb. 29, 2008



These scary stories are cycles in our free market economy.  The purchase of a home should be first just that...a place to live.  Secondly houses historically have been investments as they appreciate over time.  SOMDRENTER mya be only looking at the short term.  Sincere home buyers should be looking at a 20-30 year investment.  If history in any indicator than ANY home purchase would have a good investment.


----------



## somdrenter

foodcritic said:


> These scary stories are cycles in our free market economy.  The purchase of a home should be first just that...a place to live.  Secondly houses historically have been investments as they appreciate over time.  SOMDRENTER mya be only looking at the short term.  Sincere home buyers should be looking at a 20-30 year investment.  If history in any indicator than ANY home purchase would have a good investment.


A free market economy would not rely on government bailouts. Historically, as investments go, real estate has just kept up with inflation. On average, Americans move every 5-7 years. If ANY home purchase were a good investment, we should not see such a rise in foreclosures.


----------



## foodcritic

*twisting logic*



somdrenter said:


> A free market economy would not rely on government bailouts. Historically, as investments go, real estate has just kept up with inflation. On average, Americans move every 5-7 years. If ANY home purchase were a good investment, we should not see such a rise in foreclosures.



Free market bailouts are not the point here.  That is a distraction to point that homes appreciate over time.  Rental units do not appreciate or do you create equity. People moving is another distraction to the point that homes over the long hual appreciate.  The rise in forecloures has nothing to do with a home being a good investment.  If that was the case EVERY person who owned a home would in fourclosure....they are not and it is a small % that are.  Homes appreciate over time, equity is built over time also intrest paid is deductable yearly on income taxes.  Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## somdrenter

mominsmc said:


> Free market bailouts are not the point here.  That is a distraction to point that homes appreciate over time.  Rental units do not appreciate or do you create equity. People moving is another distraction to the point that homes over the long hual appreciate.  The rise in forecloures has nothing to do with a home being a good investment.  If that was the case EVERY person who owned a home would in fourclosure....they are not and it is a small % that are.  Homes appreciate over time, equity is built over time also intrest paid is deductable yearly on income taxes.  Seems like a no brainer to me.


Any other market factors/indicators you want to chalk up to “not the point here”? Sure, if you discount foreclosures, a market at a disconnect from fundamentals, the proliferation of toxic mortgages, record high inventory, the billions lost in real estate and the subsequent effect on the economy, tightened lending standards, slow sales, and government bailouts, then yes, the lipstick _does _look good on this pig.


----------



## bcp

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.


you realize that the posters that you dont like are also reading and could become your next door neighbor.

 will you be going to SoljaBoys crib toasting?


----------



## LexiGirl75

*I need someone to elaborate on how this is ethical*

The Mess That Greenspan Made: Why stop at reducing the principal?



> Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called Tuesday for more action to prevent distressed homeowners from falling into foreclosure, including a suggestion for mortgage lenders to reduce loan amounts to provide relief to struggling homeowners.



Ok, an example of what I think is being suggested...

I owe $100,000 on my home, in this market my home is worth $70,000, my mortgage payment is $600 and will reset to $800 and I will not be able to afford my mortgage... (This is the problem)

The solution is... Reduce my loan to $70,000 and I pay $600 for my mortgage? Because its easier to lose the money on that end of it than to lose the entire loan? Can someone help me to understand where they are coming from. I missed the speech this morning. 

TIA


----------



## LexiGirl75

*Interesting...*

These kind of gave me some insight. 



> On the idea of cutting mortgage values, Bernanke said, "Principal reductions that restore some equity for the homeowner may be a relatively more effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure. "


 For how long?



> With low or negative equity in their home, a stressed borrower has less ability — because there is no home equity to tap — and less financial incentive to try to remain in the home, he said.


 Wouldn't this put undisciplined homeowners back in the current position.



> Bernanke acknowledged this idea might be a tough sell to lenders. Lenders, he said, are reluctant to write down principal. "They said that if they were to write down the principal and house prices were to fall further, they could feel pressured to write down principal again," Bernanke said.


 Lenders fear the opening of flood gates?



> There are several reasons to keep borrowers in their houses. If people start walking away from their homes it can turn into viral urban blight. Cleveland is a prime example of this. Also, a good part of the responsibility for this fiasco lies with the lenders. Why not have them be held responsible? The real problem with this idea though is that lenders don't have any incentive to lower mortgage balances for a majority of their loans. The loans are going to be FHA or PMI backed. They most likely get more money back via the foreclosure process rather than lowering the mortgage principal. This leads to what Bernanke is really worried about and that is Fannie, Freddie, and the Private Mortgage Insurers needing to be bailed out. That kind of money comes out of the tax payers pocket instead of the banks. All in all, Bernanke's crazy idea makes more sense to me than the others ideas I have heard.


 Well... we'll see.


----------



## somdrenter

LexiGirl75 said:


> Can someone help me to understand where they are coming from. I missed the speech this morning.
> 
> TIA


I think you got the gist of it. With the sort of bail outs that Helicopter Ben and the Democrats are suggesting, the Taxpayers directly or indirectly, will be footing this bill. “Moral Hazard” be damn, with handouts like these, there are few incentives to pay your mortgage. 



> Legislation could be introduced as soon as next week, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank's comments came Wednesday following a closed-door economic forum convened by Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
> 
> A key feature of the foreclosure-prevention bill is likely to be a government-backed fund that would purchase pools of subprime mortgages that lenders had reduced to affordable amounts for borrowers, then refinance them into loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.


House Democrats vow new push on economy - Mar. 5, 2008


----------



## refi-rep

Lilypad said:


> Can you loan me the 20% cash down payment? TIA



Right now you really only need 3% down to do an FHA.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.


Housing Market Spirals, No End in Sight

NEW YORK -- Nervous homeowners and economic analysts have been wondering how much worse the housing market could get. On Thursday they got an answer: Plenty.

Foreclosures are at a record high. Home equity is at a record low. The housing market is spiraling down with no end in sight _ and taking people's sense of economic security with it.

For the first time since the Federal Reserve started tracking the data in 1945 the amount of debt tied up in American homes now exceeds the equity homeowners have built. 

The Fed reported Thursday that homeowner equity actually slipped below 50 percent in the second quarter of last year, and fell to just below 48 percent in the fourth quarter. And that was just one example in a day of dismal housing reports. 

The Mortgage Bankers Association said foreclosures hit an all-time high in the final quarter of last year. And pending U.S. home sales _ those in the gap between when a buyer signs a contract and when the deal closes _ came in below analyst expectations for January and remained at the second-lowest reading on record. 

"There is no sign that we're near the bottom in the housing market," said Douglas Elmendorf, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Fed economist. "Housing prices will probably fall for a year, two or three to come."

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines


----------



## Rael

I've re-financed a couple of times, the last one was 4.375% X 15 years = $2,200 or so per month. Maybe timing was good interest-wise, but...

Is it good to try to own your home? I've heard both arguments on this 15 yr. vs. 30 yr. vs I/O... Was that smart or not so smart?


----------



## beerlover

Rael said:


> I've re-financed a couple of times, the last one was 4.375% X 15 years = $2,200 or so per month. Maybe timing was good interest-wise, but...
> 
> Is it good to try to own your home? I've heard both arguments on this 15 yr. vs. 30 yr. vs I/O... Was that smart or not so smart?



To my way of thinking, if you can pay off your house and then continue to invest your house payment amount (or close to it) into good mutual funds, you've got the world by the short and curlies.  The people who argue to refinance constantly so you have more interest to write off aren't going by the right math.  You get a much higher return on your money by investing it rather than taking a tax break for interest paid...


----------



## Rael

beerlover said:


> To my way of thinking, if you can pay off your house and then continue to invest your house payment amount (or close to it) into good mutual funds, you've got the world by the short and curlies.  The people who argue to refinance constantly so you have more interest to write off aren't going by the right math.  You get a much higher return on your money by investing it rather than taking a tax break for interest paid...



Yeah, that makes sense to me also. Always wanted to own my home as quickly as possible. Never had that chance while moving often, but now it's different. Looking forward to that day. Thx, bl.


----------



## vraiblonde

Rael said:


> Is it good to try to own your home? I've heard both arguments on this 15 yr. vs. 30 yr. vs I/O... Was that smart or not so smart?



My goal is to pay my house off ASAP.  I took out a 30 year, but I pay extra on the principle every month.  Some people like to spend their equity and don't care if they ever get the house paid off, but not me.  At some point I want to own my house free and clear so I don't have to worry about mortgage payments when I'm ready to retire, plus if I decide to sell I can get the full price in my pocket and use it for whatever needs to happen at that point.


----------



## Rael

vraiblonde said:


> My goal is to pay my house off ASAP.  I took out a 30 year, but I pay extra on the principle every month.  Some people like to spend their equity and don't care if they ever get the house paid off, but not me.  At some point I want to own my house free and clear so I don't have to worry about mortgage payments when I'm ready to retire, plus if I decide to sell I can get the full price in my pocket and use it for whatever needs to happen at that point.



We spent some equity three years ago on a home project, but we're trying to pay that one down quickly, too. Someday...
A 30 year paid off sooner with extra principle each month also makes sense to me. You're not tied to giving that extra principle each month, but you're still paying it off (as opposed to being committed to a 15 year monthly mortgage every month).


----------



## MMDad

vraiblonde said:


> My goal is to pay my house off ASAP.  I took out a 30 year, but I pay extra on the principle every month.



 That's how I'm doing it. I can treat my loan as a 15 year, but if something happens and cash gets tight I can go back to paying at the 30 year amount. The flexibility is worth it.

Have you noticed how Patchy and this renter dude say that all down days in the stock market are due to mortgages, and Forest says that it's all due to Bush and oil prices. Gee, if I didn't know better, I might think that the market is a bit more complex than any single issue. Fortunately I have Forest and Renter to explain it so well.


----------



## RoseRed

I have noticed in the paper that my old house in up for Trustee's Sale.  I guess the guy that bought it to use as a rental couldn't keep with that and another one of his properties, it was up for foreclosure too.


----------



## somdrenter

MMDad said:


> Gee, if I didn't know better, I might think that the market is a bit more complex than any single issue. Fortunately I have Forest and Renter to explain it so well.


Perhaps not _the _ single issue but.....

“US stock markets have fallen heavily in recent months in reaction to an ongoing housing market downturn, a widespread credit crunch and rocketing oil prices which hit a record 106.54 dollars per barrel Friday.”
AFP: Dow falls under 12,000 as job losses roil Wall St.

“The subprime crisis and disintegrating U.S. housing market have been at the back of the turbulence in the financial markets, and there was more bad news Thursday afternoon.”
Stocks Slide Down The Housing Drain - Forbes.com

“Stocks tumbled Thursday as renewed concerns about the credit markets and another dose of disappointing housing numbers intensified the market's worries about the sagging economy. The Dow Jones industrials fell more than 100 points while the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index gave up more than 1 percent.”
Credit Woes, Housing Data Drag on Stocks - Forbes.com

“US STOCKS-Wall St sinks on mortgage fallout, economy”
Feed Article | Business |


----------



## LexiGirl75

> A key feature of the foreclosure-prevention bill is likely to be a government-backed fund that would *purchase *pools of subprime *mortgages *that lenders had reduced to affordable amounts for borrowers, then refinance them into loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.



Can they just buy my house from me.  This is like a nightmare, I want out. I have other plans now.


----------



## BuddyLee

LexiGirl75 said:


> Can they just buy my house from me.  This is like a nightmare, I want out. I have other plans now.


I can make a 10 dollar down payment.


----------



## LexiGirl75

BuddyLee said:


> I can make a 10 dollar down payment.



If the mortgage company finances you, you may have it. I'll even gift you the $10. 

If only.


----------



## BuddyLee

LexiGirl75 said:


> If the mortgage company finances you, you may have it. I'll even gift you the $10.
> 
> If only.


Where do you reside now?


----------



## LexiGirl75

BuddyLee said:


> Where do you reside now?



You took all of the fun out of this.


----------



## somdrenter

MMDad said:


> Have you noticed how Patchy and this renter dude say that all down days in the stock market are due to mortgages, and Forest says that it's all due to Bush and oil prices. Gee, if I didn't know better, I might think that the market is a bit more complex than any single issue. Fortunately I have Forest and Renter to explain it so well.



How subprime killed Bear Stearns
A problem with risky mortgages has led to a *global *financial crisis. The bigger issue: _Experts don't know when it will end._

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- *It started last summer when borrowers with weak credit started defaulting on their mortgages.* Last night, it brought down an 85-year-old pillar of Wall Street.

How did we get to this point? How did rising foreclosures among subprime borrowers lead to Bear Stearns being scooped up in a fire-sale for two bucks a share?

The answer starts with investment banks: They sold complex securities backed by debt that was a lot riskier than most realized. The realization that the banks had failed to manage this risk sparked widespread concern among investors and other financial firms. Suddenly, investors found they couldn't put a value on much of what the banks were selling. As a result, the lending markets that keep Wall Street humming seized up because people feared they wouldn't get paid back.

"We got to the point where the various parties in the financial system started not to trust each other," said Lawrence White, an economics professor at New York University.

_What's worse is that no one knows when it will end. _

Every week, it seems, another part of the U.S. financial system falters and the federal government has to come up with a new rescue plan. The Federal Reserve Bank's actions have helped soothe the markets in past crises, but the magnitude of the current meltdown may prove unprecedented, experts said. Today's troubles ensnare not only traditional banks, but investment firms, hedge funds, insurance companies and non-bank lenders.

No place like home

*The roots of the current crisis lie in the euphoria of the real estate boom.* With housing prices soaring and the economy solid, financial firms dove into the lucrative mortgage market. To meet the insatiable desire for mortgage-backed securities, firms loosened their lending standards and extended credit to people with weaker financial backgrounds.

Subprime to Bear Stearns: The road to meltdown - Mar. 17, 2008


----------



## gumbo

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.



Call me crazy. By this summer those prices will drop further.


----------



## backagain39

I don't think all the blame can be laid on bad mortgage loans.......

Between the higher prices of heating and cooling the home, the taxes going up on the home, higher insurance costs on homes and cars, the cost of a phone, food, gas and people getting laid off or loosing jobs due to companies gong bankrupt....all of this has contributed to our current situation.


----------



## somdrenter

backagain39 said:


> I don't think all the blame can be laid on bad mortgage loans.......
> 
> Between the higher prices of heating and cooling the home, the taxes going up on the home, higher insurance costs on homes and cars, the cost of a phone, food, gas and people getting laid off or loosing jobs due to companies gong bankrupt....all of this has contributed to our current situation.



Why have these cost increased? Could it be the devaluation of the dollar? Why has the value of the dollar dropped?


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.


Home Price Drop Signals Tough Spring
Tuesday March 25, 5:48 pm ET 
By Vinnee Tong, AP Business Writer  
Spring Home-Selling Season Could Disappoint if New Data on Falling Prices Is Indication 


NEW YORK (AP) -- Home prices plunged by record levels in January from a year ago, with almost no major cities immune from the spiraling market. Analysts worried that even the usually reliable spring selling season would fall flat.

The closely watched Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index of home prices in 20 cities fell nearly 11 percent in January from a year earlier, the biggest drop in its two-decade history.

The only bright spot was a 1.8 percent increase in Charlotte, N.C., where real estate agents say prices rose more modestly during the boom years and the regional economy is relatively strong.

Everywhere else, mounting foreclosures, falling consumer confidence and sellers slashing their asking prices are taking an increasing toll on the market.

Home Price Drop Signals Tough Spring: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## somdrenter

*Fed Officials Worried About Recession*



MMDad said:


> Have you noticed how Patchy and this renter dude say that all down days in the stock market are due to mortgages, and Forest says that it's all due to Bush and oil prices. Gee, if I didn't know better, I might think that the market is a bit more complex than any single issue. Fortunately I have Forest and Renter to explain it so well.


Fed Officials Worried About Recession
Tuesday April 8, 6:46 pm ET 
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer  
Some Fed Policymakers Worried About `prolonged and Severe' Economic Downturn 


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Worries about a deep recession -- not a shallow one -- drove Federal Reserve policymakers to slash a key interest rate last month, meeting minutes show.
Even as the Fed battled in almost unprecedented fashion to stem a widening credit and housing slump, some members fretted over the possibility of a "prolonged and severe" economic downturn. It was in that environment that they voted -- with two dissents -- to cut its most important interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to 2.25 percent. That action capped the most aggressive Fed intervention in a quarter-century.....

....On the one hand, the Fed has been urgently moving to prevent the trio of economic woes *-- housing, credit and financial-- *from plunging the country into a deep recession. On the other hand, with soaring energy prices and high food costs, policymakers realize that they can't afford to let inflation get out of control, either


Fed Officials Worried About Recession: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## somdrenter

*Homes in foreclosure top 1 million*



vraiblonde said:


> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.


*Mortgage bankers report hits grim a benchmark in first quarter, showing a record number of homes in jeopardy. *

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More than one million homes are now in foreclosure, the highest rate ever recorded, according to a trade group which warned Thursday that number will continue to climb.
The Mortgage Bankers Association's first quarter report showed that a record 2.5% of all loans being serviced by its members are now in foreclosure, which works out to about 1.1 million homes. That's up from the 2% of loans, or about 938,000 homes, that were in foreclosure at the end of 2007.

More than a million homes in foreclosure in latest report - Jun. 5, 2008


----------



## pointfarm

You may be able to afford a mortgage, but can you afford the real estate taxes, insurance & maintenance....


----------



## desertrat

somdrenter said:


> *Mortgage bankers report hits grim a benchmark in first quarter, showing a record number of homes in jeopardy. *
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More than one million homes are now in foreclosure, the highest rate ever recorded, according to a trade group which warned Thursday that number will continue to climb.
> The Mortgage Bankers Association's first quarter report showed that a record 2.5% of all loans being serviced by its members are now in foreclosure, which works out to about 1.1 million homes. That's up from the 2% of loans, or about 938,000 homes, that were in foreclosure at the end of 2007.
> 
> More than a million homes in foreclosure in latest report - Jun. 5, 2008



So when is your landlord going to be foreclosed on?


----------



## Vince

pointfarm said:


> You may be able to afford a mortgage, but can you afford the real estate taxes, insurance & maintenance....


Taxes and insurance can be figured into your mortgage payment.  Maintenance costs....:shrug:  you'll have to wait and see what pops up.


----------



## pointfarm

Exactly...


----------



## somdrenter

desertrat said:


> So when is your landlord going to be foreclosed on?


Who knows. I checked out the mdlandrec site, tax site and the MD courts site and things look on the up and up. No HELOC, ARM, or any other type of toxic mortgage. 

Given the number of rentals on the market, it’s about time to negotiate a lower rent!


----------



## somdrenter

*The $5 trillion mess*



MMDad said:


> Have you noticed how Patchy and this renter dude say that all down days in the stock market are due to mortgages, and Forest says that it's all due to Bush and oil prices. Gee, if I didn't know better, I might think that the market is a bit more complex than any single issue. Fortunately I have Forest and Renter to explain it so well.


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Congress to help more Americans buy homes. Now their shaky condition threatens the entire housing market.
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- They own or guarantee $5 trillion worth of mortgages# - nearly half of all the country's outstanding home loan debt-and they're crashing. Big time. 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are struggling with an investor loss of confidence so great that, while they're unlikely to go under, they could conceivably see their ability to function impaired. That would wreak yet more havoc on an already wrecked housing market- making loans tougher to come by and possibly pushing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost onto U.S. taxpayers. 

How could the companies end up in such awful straits? Given the way they were created and run, a better question might be: how could they not?

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: The $5 trillion mess - Jul. 11, 2008


----------



## desertrat

somdrenter said:


> Who knows. I checked out the mdlandrec site, tax site and the MD courts site and things look on the up and up. No HELOC, ARM, or any other type of toxic mortgage.
> 
> Given the number of rentals on the market, it’s about time to negotiate a lower rent!



Or look for one.


----------



## remaxrealtor

somdrenter said:


> Who knows. I checked out the mdlandrec site, tax site and the MD courts site and things look on the up and up. No HELOC, ARM, or any other type of toxic mortgage.
> 
> Given the number of rentals on the market, it’s about time to negotiate a lower rent!



You + wind + $ = 

Nuff said....


----------



## somdrenter

*Nuff said? How bout one more little tid bit....*



remaxrealtor said:


> You + wind + $ =
> 
> Nuff said....





Regulators seize troubled IndyMac
Feds take over mortgage lender IndyMac. FDIC will seek buyer. May become most expensive bank collapse ever.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In what could turn out to be the most expensive bank failure ever, troubled mortgage lender IndyMac Bank was taken over by federal regulators on Friday.

The operations of the Pasadena, Calif.-based bank - once one of the nation's largest home lenders - were shut down at 3 p.m. by the Office of Thrift Supervision and transferred to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. 

According to the FDIC, *10,000 IndyMac customers could lose as much as $500 million in uninsured deposits*. The agency says the failure will cost the Deposit Insurance Fund between $4 billion and $8 billion, based on preliminary estimates.

Bank regulators close IndyMac, transfer to FDIC - Jul. 11, 2008


----------



## somdrenter

remaxrealtor said:


> You + wind + $ =
> 
> Nuff said....



How it got to this point

IndyMac specialized in loans it had long argued were of minimal risk: low documentation loans to residential *mortgage borrowers*.

On Tuesday, IndyMac - which had 33 branches - announced that it was firing 53% of its workforce and exiting its retail and wholesale lending units. Last year, the lender was ranked 11th in residential mortgage origination, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

Rising Alt-A and *prime mortgage *delinquencies likely were enough indication for investors that the housing crisis had moved beyond the weakest borrowers. Even worse, with the securitization markets in collapse, IndyMac had no way to get new loans off its books. As it turned out, IndyMac was a leader in loans requiring little income and asset documentation, a category that has had disastrous levels of delinquencies at other troubled lenders. What loans the bank had made recently were to borrowers with well-documented assets and income, but those are sharply less profitable with respect to fees and interest income.


----------



## somdrenter

*Remax, don’t forget about Freddie and Fannie…..*



remaxrealtor said:


> You + wind + $ =
> 
> Nuff said....


July 11 (Bloomberg) –
 U.S. stocks fell, extending the longest stretch of weekly losses for the Standard & Poor's 500 Index since 2004, as growing concern about the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sent bank shares to an 11-year low. 

…Fannie shares opened the day down as much as 49 percent and Freddie dropped as much as 51 percent. A government takeover of one or both companies is among options that could be considered by White House officials, said Joshua Rosner, an analyst with Graham Fisher & Co. Inc., who met with the administration yesterday. 

*Officials may push for the firms, which own or guarantee about half of the $12trillion of U.S. mortgages, to be placed in a conservatorship if their problems get worse, he said. *

Fannie and Freddie rallied from their lows today after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the government backs the lenders ``in their current form,'' signaling the administration's intent to keep them as shareholder-owned companies, rather than placing them under government control. 

Bloomberg.com: U.S.


----------



## RadioPatrol

vraiblonde said:


> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.




maybe $ 1600 Per Month is too bloody much ...


----------



## FromTexas

Two houses down the block from me: one rented for more than they pay on the mortgage and the other sold for more than they bought it for only two years ago.  

This market is killing them...


----------



## onebdzee

FromTexas said:


> Two houses down the block from me: one rented for more than they pay on the mortgage and the other sold for more than they bought it for only two years ago.
> 
> This market is killing them...



I was told the other day by a realtor that my house won't rent for $1800 a month....the house across the street is half the size of mine and rents for $1500


----------



## desertrat

onebdzee said:


> I was told the other day by a realtor that my house won't rent for $1800 a month....the house across the street is half the size of mine and rents for $1500



You have a nice lot. that should count for a lot. Don't listen to the realtor, just try it and see if it flies.


----------



## onebdzee

desertrat said:


> You have a nice lot. that should count for a lot. Don't listen to the realtor, just try it and see if it flies.



She was pushing the whole "lets sell and get you out of your mortage....even though we might not get what you owe on it" thing 

I don't think I will be doing business with her


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> I made stupid decisions and now I'll be paying off landlords mortgages the rest of my life.


 I'm debating paying off my mortgage.  But if I did that I'd lose my lil tax write off. Decisions, decisions... 

Those lucky renters don't have this stress and pressure.


----------



## FromTexas

onebdzee said:


> She was pushing the whole "lets sell and get you out of your mortage....even though we might not get what you owe on it" thing
> 
> I don't think I will be doing business with her



Doesn't care whats best for you.  She just wants what she will make more money on.  Probably would tell you to sell it for less than it would get to just make a commission.


----------



## onebdzee

FromTexas said:


> Doesn't care whats best for you.  She just wants what she will make more money on.  Probably would tell you to sell it for less than it would get to just make a commission.



She wanted to do a "quick loan"....where the mortage company would take what I could get on the house and either forget the balance or I would have to pay the balance(it was up to the mortage company to deceide)....I didn't like that one at all....I asked her what she was going to make on the deal and she said what ever the closing cost were going to be(approx. $9k) 

I think if the time comes that I have to move....I will rent my house till the market goes back up....by then my mortage will be considerably less than what it is now and I won't be calling her to list it


----------



## BS Gal

onebdzee said:


> She wanted to do a "quick loan"....where the mortage company would take what I could get on the house and either forget the balance or I would have to pay the balance(it was up to the mortage company to deceide)....I didn't like that one at all....I asked her what she was going to make on the deal and she said what ever the closing cost were going to be(approx. $9k)
> 
> I think if the time comes that I have to move....I will rent my house till the market goes back up....by then my mortage will be considerably less than what it is now and I won't be calling her to list it



The house next door to us just rented.  HUGE five bedroom, built by the owner.....incredible house. They were asking $1700 and it took a few months for them to rent it.  The piece of crap across the street is listed for $1600/month, I think.  Been up for rent for over a month now.  Lots of people coming to see it, but nobody moving in.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Those lucky renters don't have this stress and pressure.


No kidding.



> WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The White House and the Federal Reserve moved Sunday to prevent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from failing. In a statement, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the global reach of Fannie and Freddie necessitated unprecedented action. The Treasury has asked Congres to increase the existing line of credit to Fannie and Freddie. In addition, Treasury asked Congress for the power to buy the two companies stock. In a separate vote, the Fed board of governors voted to open its discount window lending facility to Fannie and Freddie. In return, Paulson asked Congress to give the Fed a formal role to work with the new GSE regulator on capital standards for Fannie and Freddie.



CORRECT: Treasury, Fed move to rescue Fannie and Freddie - MarketWatch


----------



## somdrenter

*S&P: Home prices drop by record 15.8 pct. in May*



vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.


Private housing index shows home prices dropping by record amount nationwide in May 


NEW YORK (AP) -- Home prices tumbled by the steepest rate ever in May, according to a closely watched housing index released Tuesday, as the housing slump deepened nationwide.

The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city index dropped by 15.8 percent in May compared with a year ago, a record decline since its inception in 2000. The 10-city index plunged 16.9

No city in the Case-Shiller 20-city index saw price gains in May, the second straight month that's happened. The monthly indices have not recorded an overall home price increase in any month since August 2006.

Home values have fallen 18.4 percent since the 20-city index's peak in July 2006.

Nine metropolitan cities -- Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Wash., Portland, Ore., and Washington, D.C. -- posted record declines in May. And the value of housing in Detroit is now lower than it was in 2000.


S&P: Home prices drop by record 15.8 pct. in May: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## jetmonkey

That's awesome, now more people can afford their dream of home ownership!!!


----------



## desertrat

jetmonkey said:


> That's awesome, now more people can afford their dream of home ownership!!!



About time. I'm tired of this friggin' tent in the woods.


----------



## somdrenter

*More pain at Fannie - $2.3 billion loss*



desertrat said:


> About time. I'm tired of this friggin' tent in the woods.



Keep that tent handy:


> More pain at Fannie - $2.3 billion loss
> Mortgage finance giant suffers much larger-than-expected loss due to reserves for credit losses and slashes its dividend to preserve capital.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae reported a much larger-than-expected loss in the second quarter and slashed its dividend Friday, more signs that the problems in housing and financial markets are not over.
> 
> The firm reported a net loss of $2.3 billion, or $2.54 a share. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters forecast a loss of 68 cents a share, compared to earnings of $1.86 a share a year earlier. But large increase in reserves for bad debt and a writedown in the value of its holdings hurt the results.
> 
> The company warned of billions more in credit losses this year than it had previously forecast, and said the rate of credit losses is likely to get even worse next year.
> 
> Fannie Mae also gave a gloomier forecast on the battered housing market, saying that the range of price declines is likely to be at the upper end of its previous forecast of a 7% to 9% drop in 2008.
> 
> "The housing market has returned to earth fast and hard," Fannie Chief Executive Daniel Mudd said in a conference call. He said uncertainty about the market made it impossible to say "what inning we're in" or when prices would reach bottom.
> 
> "There is progress but we have a long way to go," Mudd added.
> 
> Fannie losses much larger than expected, slashes dividend - Aug. 8, 2008


----------



## Geek

desertrat said:


> About time. I'm tired of this friggin' tent in the woods.


----------



## Jam4eva

vraiblonde said:


> Are you predicting that we will fall into a major depression and real estate will plunge to record lows and never recover?  And then maybe we'll be taken over by the Taliban and live in caves for the rest of our lives?



I laugh everytime I read this.  Just awaiting the Taliban and it will all be complete.


----------



## jetmonkey

Jam4eva said:


> I laugh everytime I read this.  Just awaiting the Taliban and it will all be complete.



How often do you read it?


----------



## somdrenter

Jam4eva said:


> I laugh everytime I read this.  Just awaiting the Taliban and it will all be complete.


What the.....where'd the housing cheerleaders go?


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> What the.....where'd the housing cheerleaders go?



Still here, still living in it, still paying down my principal while waiting for things to even out.  It is warm and cozy and mine. 

If they had done the $15K tax credit I might have tried to upgrade because my house is on the lesser expensive end of the local specrtum and it could move and net me about $70K.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> If they had done the $15K tax credit I might have tried to upgrade because my house is on the lesser expensive end of the local specrtum and it could move and net me about $70K.


Of course it would move…these things are sell’n like hot cakes. Heck, don’t settle for only $70K Pete.


----------



## Bann

somdrenter said:


> What the.....where'd the housing cheerleaders go?



  I just bought a house.

You can check out all the home sales by counties here:  

Real Property Search

There's still selling/buying going on.


----------



## somdrenter

Bann said:


> I just bought a house.
> 
> You can check out all the home sales by counties here:
> 
> Real Property Search
> 
> There's still selling/buying going on.


Like I said…..like hot cakes. Now’s the time to get your home on the market. 

MRIS Statistics


----------



## jetmonkey

somdrenter said:


> What the.....where'd the housing cheerleaders go?



I live in a house and I recommend it to all my friends


----------



## Larry Gude

jetmonkey said:


> I live in a house and I recommend it to all my friends



Big house, huh?


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> What the.....where'd the housing cheerleaders go?



Right now is a good time to buy a house.


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Of course it would move…these things are sell’n like hot cakes. Heck, don’t settle for only $70K Pete.



You never know.  Being that I am in no rush and my payment was made easily I could put a conservative price on it and sit.  All is not doom and gloom.  as far as settling for $70K you know something is only worth what someone will pay for it.  My house falls right in the middle of the largest segment in your report linked above. 

Of course I am in this position because I am smart.


----------



## Vince

Larry Gude said:


> Right now is a good time to buy a house.


By the time I get this house the way I want it (remodeled, additions, etc) it'll be time to sell and buy another.  :shrug:


----------



## jetmonkey

Larry Gude said:


> Big house, huh?



I'm overcompensating


----------



## somdrenter

Larry Gude said:


> Right now is a good time to buy a house.


It's never a bad time.....so say the professionals.


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> It's never a bad time.....so say the professionals.



It's bad to buy at the top and try to sell at the bottom.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.





> Boomers: 30% underwater
> Many of those nearing retirement will have very little to live on thanks to an erosion of home equity.
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What a turnaround for the American Dream!
> 
> According to a report released Wednesday, the real estate market bust and stock market declines have carved a huge chunk out of the assets of baby boomers.
> 
> So much home equity has been lost that 30% of boomers, aged 45 to 54, are underwater in their homes, according to "The Wealth of the Baby Boom Cohorts After the Collapse of the Housing Bubble. " The report, released by D.C.-based think tank the Center for Economic and Policy Research, also found that 18% of boomers aged 55 to 64 would owe money at close if they sold their homes.
> 
> The CEPR also found that *people who were renting homes in 2004 will have more wealth in 2009 than those who were owners.* That's true for all five wealth groups the study analyzed, from the poorest to the wealthiest.
> 
> "The collapse of the housing bubble, which led to the current recession, has already destroyed almost $6 trillion dollars in housing wealth for homeowners," said report co-author Dean Baker. "This reality is compounded by the recent collapse of the stock market. Many baby boomers will only have Social Security and Medicare to rely on in their retirement."



Boomer wealth is evaporating - Feb. 25, 2009


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> Boomer wealth is evaporating - Feb. 25, 2009



So, what's your point? They'd be so much better off had they just rented and put their money...in stocks and lost 1/2 their value? Under the mattress? In tin cans buried in the back yard? 

How much 'value' do you have in the property you are paying to rent?


----------



## DoWhat

Wife and I may be selling our house.
We put down an offer on this one.
Advertisement - Real Estate Ads


----------



## kwillia

DoWhat said:


> Wife and I may be selling our house.
> We put down an offer on this one.
> Advertisement - Real Estate Ads



That'll take alotta mulch...


----------



## Baja28

Pete said:


> Still here, still living in it, still paying down my principal while waiting for things to even out.  It is warm and cozy *and mine. * *Of course I am in this position because I am smart*.


Poor Patchy & Renter.  I think Patchy jumped from the bridge.  Renter is no better off. 





Larry Gude said:


> How much 'value' do you have in the property you are paying to rent?


Yes renter, enlighten us.


----------



## Pandora

I have said all along that if we are lucky, prices will settle down to the 2003, early 2004 prices. 

Our old house in Waldorf sold in Jan. 07 for a whopping $425,000; we sold it in 2004 for $300,000.  The only upgrade it had was a hot tub.  Those new buyers are going to be stuck for awhile.  

Recently, I am hearing what I think are high rent prices and I know some are actually getting $1500-1600 a month for a tiny 3 bedroom 2 bath home.  But I also think those prices are going to come down.  Our economy really isn't good and is going to get worse.... if you think otherwise, you are foolish.


----------



## Baja28

DoWhat said:


> Wife and I may be selling our house.
> We put down an offer on this one.
> Advertisement - Real Estate Ads



Dear Mr. What, 

You may find humor in your offer on my lovely waterfront property, however, I failed to even chuckle.  

Therefore, I am not interested in letting you and your dog live in my basement in trade for mowing the lawn and removing seagull poop from the pier.  Although your offer of unlimited Budlight is slightly attractive, it pales in comparison to Pete's offer of Leinenkugle Sunset Wheat and a new boat. 


Sincerely, 

No Rent  Baja


----------



## DoWhat

Baja28 said:


> removing seagull poop from the pier.



You don't realize how hard it is to clean seagull poop, do you?


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> So, what's your point? They'd be so much better off had they just rented and put their money...in stocks and lost 1/2 their value? Under the mattress? In tin cans buried in the back yard?
> 
> How much 'value' do you have in the property you are paying to rent?



Is that the depths of your thinking? They couldn't have put it in an online savings account or TIPS? Back at the time this thread was created, online banks were paying 5% and they're still paying 3% in some cases, so that would give a baseline of a 4% FDIC insured gain versus huge losses by buying a home and investing in the wrong stocks.

But oh wait, you're part of the operation that pumps "buy now" because you profit from other peoples losses in the form of advertising dollars. Let's just call a spade a spade, okay?


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> Is that the depths of your thinking?



Is it the depth of my thinking to ask someone what they would do when they arguing against a given course of action? 

Yes.


----------



## somdrenter

Larry Gude said:


> How much 'value' do you have in the property you are paying to rent?


Depending on which comps you use, roughly $1K per month, and that’s not including maintenance/upkeep.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Renter is no better off.





> The CEPR also found that people who were renting homes in 2004 will have more wealth in 2009 than those who were owners. That's true for all five wealth groups the study analyzed, from the poorest to the wealthiest.
> 
> "The collapse of the housing bubble, which led to the current recession, has already destroyed almost $6 trillion dollars in housing wealth for homeowners," said report co-author Dean Baker. "This reality is compounded by the recent collapse of the stock market. Many baby boomers will only have Social Security and Medicare to rely on in their retirement."


Boomer wealth is evaporating - Feb. 25, 2009


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Depending on which comps you use, roughly $1K per month, and that’s not including maintenance/upkeep.


Negative! 100% of 0 is 0. 





somdrenter said:


> Boomer wealth is evaporating - Feb. 25, 2009


Do you read the tripe you post??  30% made bad decisions (you're included) yet *70%* of us made good decisions (you're excluded). 

The answer to this equation...... I own a home, you make your landlord rich and own nothing.  Enjoy!


----------



## bcp

Im doing ok.
 my mortgage is staying the same, not increasing with the economy.
 the way I see it, I could be paying more for something that Im not getting any equity from.

 I seriously feel sorry for the renters in this economy. at least my housing cost will stay even, rent however, is going to have to go up in order for the landlords to make end meet.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Negative! 100% of 0 is 0.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you read the tripe you post??  30% made bad decisions (you're included) yet *70%* of us made good decisions (you're excluded).
> 
> The answer to this equation...... I own a home, you make your landlord rich and own nothing.  Enjoy!


----------



## somdrenter

bcp said:


> I seriously feel sorry for the renters in this economy. at least my housing cost will stay even, rent however, is going to have to go up in order for the landlords to make end meet.


Actually, quite the opposite is happening. Home sales are abysmal and more sellers are turning to rentals. More rentals on the market create downward pressure on rental prices.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


>


Pretty funny huh? Your landlord thinks so.  





somdrenter said:


> Actually, quite the opposite is happening. Home sales are abysmal and more sellers are turning to rentals. More rentals on the market create downward pressure on rental prices.


WOO HOO!!!  Shop around Renty ole boy!!  Might find ya self a better deal to throw your money away on... So the landlords don't make quite as much money.... They're still depositing your check every month!!


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> Depending on which comps you use, roughly $1K per month, and that’s not including maintenance/upkeep.



So, if you stop renting, you get $1,000 a month back? For how long? Maybe I've got this renting business all wrong.


----------



## BoyGenius

*Keep Pumping Shills*

"The test also assumes housing-price declines of 14 percent this year and 4 percent in 2010 as a baseline case. The more adverse possibility would see drops of 22 percent and 7 percent, respectively."

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> So, if you stop renting, you get $1,000 a month back? For how long? Maybe I've got this renting business all wrong.



Larry, give us some hard numbers. Say some retard read this thread back in October of 2007, took the advice, and bought one of those pre-fab trailers in San Souci for $170k. How much are they down now?

And don't hit me up with that "they've lost nothing till they sell' garbage, we're talking mark to market accounting here.


----------



## DoWhat

BoyGenius said:


> Larry, give us some hard numbers. Say some retard read this thread back in October of 2007, took the advice, and bought one of those pre-fab trailers in San Souci for $170k. How much are they down now?
> 
> And don't hit me up with that "they've lost nothing till they sell' garbage, we're talking mark to market accounting here.



And if they didn't buy, they would have what? (not talking about the pre-fab trailers)
If somebody can afford to buy, rather than rent, they will be better off.
Depending that they do not want to move within the next 5 years.


----------



## BoyGenius

DoWhat said:


> And if they didn't buy, they would have what? (not talking about the pre-fab trailers)
> If somebody can afford to buy, rather than rent, they will be better off.
> Depending that they do not want to move within the next 5 years.



Well, they wouldn't have $60k of negative equity around their neck, now would they?


----------



## Baja28

BoyGenius said:


> Well, they wouldn't have $60k of negative equity around their neck, now would they?


But if they are planning on staying, they now own a home.  A renter has nothing.


----------



## DoWhat

BoyGenius said:


> Well, they wouldn't have $60k of negative equity around their neck, now would they?



Why would they have 60k of negative equity?


----------



## BoyGenius

DoWhat said:


> Why would they have 60k of negative equity?



My bad, make that $70k, more when you tack on the sales commission and transfer fees.

45943 SHIELDS CT SAN SOUCI CALIFORNIA MD - HomesDatabase

45943 Shields Ct.

By the way, that listed price amount is $12k under it's 2003 sales price.

We'll check back in five years on this one and see who we get to label a dumbass.


----------



## DoWhat

BoyGenius said:


> My bad, make that $70k, more when you tack on the sales commission and transfer fees.
> 
> 45943 SHIELDS CT SAN SOUCI CALIFORNIA MD - HomesDatabase
> 
> 45943 Shields Ct.
> 
> By the way, that listed price amount is $12k under it's 2003 sales price.
> 
> We'll check back in five years on this one and see who we get to label a dumbass.



Do you have a mortgage, or do you rent?


----------



## Baja28

DoWhat said:


> Do you have a mortgage, or do you rent?


he's an obvious renter.


----------



## BoyGenius

DoWhat said:


> Do you have a mortgage, or do you rent?



What does that have to do with the facts at hand?


----------



## Pete

Not this worn out old debate again


----------



## DoWhat

BoyGenius said:


> What does that have to do with the facts at hand?



Is Mommy and Daddy foreclosing?


----------



## onebdzee

BoyGenius said:


> My bad, make that $70k, more when you tack on the sales commission and transfer fees.
> 
> 45943 SHIELDS CT SAN SOUCI CALIFORNIA MD - HomesDatabase
> 
> 45943 Shields Ct.
> 
> By the way, that listed price amount is $12k under it's 2003 sales price.
> 
> We'll check back in five years on this one and see who we get to label a dumbass.



uuuummmmm......that's a mobile home(without the wheels) on a lot that isn't half the size of my house.....they are lucky if they get what they are asking for it now

The value of those homes over in san souci(or anywhere else like that) are either going to stay the same or depreciate over time because of what the home is....it is a double wide mobile home(not sure if it is on a foundation or not) with the axles removed....which makes them by state regulations a modular home

When I was looking for a house a couple of years ago, those houses in that complex were all on the lower end of the price list of the database listings


----------



## onebdzee

Pete said:


> Not this worn out old debate again



They are talking moble homes vs real houses now 

You gonna be around tomorrow around 3:30-4....I can drop off that equipment if you still want to return it for me


----------



## BoyGenius

onebdzee said:


> uuuummmmm......that's a mobile home(without the wheels) on a lot that isn't half the size of my house.....they are lucky if they get what they are asking for it now
> 
> The value of those homes over in san souci(or anywhere else like that) are either going to stay the same or depreciate over time because of what the home is....it is a double wide mobile home(not sure if it is on a foundation or not) with the axles removed....which makes them by state regulations a modular home
> 
> When I was looking for a house a couple of years ago, those houses in that complex were all on the lower end of the price list of the database listings



results

And still no remorse from the shills who slaughtered these folks.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Pretty funny huh? Your landlord thinks so.
> 
> 
> 
> WOO HOO!!!  Shop around Renty ole boy!!  Might find ya self a better deal to throw your money away on... So the landlords don't make quite as much money.... They're still depositing your check every month!!


I apologize Baja.

After multiple bank failures, trillions in bailouts, the Dow hovering around 7000, rising foreclosures, abysmal sales, falling sales prices, automakers getting bailouts, rising unemployment; all due largely to the housing bubble, and an example of how renting a comparable home could save you 12 grand a year…

I thought you were kidding.


----------



## somdrenter

Larry Gude said:


> So, if you stop renting, you get $1,000 a month back? For how long? Maybe I've got this renting business all wrong.


Apparently.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> But if they are planning on staying, they now own a home.  A renter has nothing.


Humm, paid off in 2 years. I must admit, that's pretty good.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> I apologize Baja.
> 
> After multiple bank failures, trillions in bailouts, the Dow hovering around 7000, rising foreclosures, abysmal sales, falling sales prices, automakers getting bailouts, rising unemployment; all due largely to the housing bubble, and an example of how renting a comparable home could save you 12 grand a year…
> 
> I thought you were kidding.


I just paid off my house.  Please tell me how I could save $12,000.00 per year by renting.  I'll wait.


----------



## onebdzee

somdrenter said:


> Humm, paid off in 2 years. I must admit, that's pretty good.



My brother just paid off his 30 year mortage last month....took him about 4 and a half years....all that money he use to pay his mortage with will now go into his retirement fund....If I keep going the way I'm going, I will have mine paid off in about another 4 or so years(30 yr mortage)....I will be doing the same as my brother

Can you say that you don't have a house to pay on every month?....oh....wait....you don't have a house, it belongs to someone else and you will continue to pay their mortage every month....good luck making that rent on SS


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Humm, paid off in 2 years. I must admit, that's pretty good.


It was paid off in 10 years.

Well I'm off to bed in *MY* home.  You keep lookin for more doom and gloom while making sure your check is to the landlord on time.  Tomorrow is the 1st of the month and rent is due yanno.  

While Nobammy is bankrupting the country, maybe he'll slide you some coins to buy a house that you can pay on for the next 30 yrs.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> I just paid off my house.  Please tell me how I could save $12,000.00 per year by renting.  I'll wait.


That’s super Baja. You get a gold star for being economically responsible and an overall good citizen.

But I never said you could. No one has suggested renting long term, or that renting is always the best solution. I have said, especially during the bubble years and during our current economic situation, that renting may be the best solution for many.

For instance. If we look at the last few years, home prices have been well over the historic affordability levels. Simply put, the average family income can not support the average home price. At the end of ’08, something like 75% of our current local work force could not afford the average home. 

We now see the results of those inflated prices and some are just now realizing that it was toxic mortgages, loose lending and pressured appraisers that propped up those inflated prices. Some will never realize it, others will never admit it.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> You keep lookin for more doom and gloom while making sure your check is to the landlord on time.  Tomorrow is the 1st of the month and rent is due yanno.
> 
> While Nobammy is bankrupting the country, maybe he'll slide you some coins to buy a house that you can pay on for the next 30 yrs.


Doom and gloom? Again, sorry Baja, hate to disappoint, no “doom and gloom” here.

And it looks like no handouts either for those who have paid off their home, and/or are financially responsible.


----------



## somdrenter

onebdzee said:


> Can you say that you don't have a house to pay on every month?....oh....wait....you don't have a house, it belongs to someone else and you will continue to pay their mortage every month....good luck making that rent on SS


Yes. I can.  And no luck needed making rent on SS. I don’t plan on renting long term, and no one should count on SS being around.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> Not this worn out old debate again


Debate?

I thought these trillions in bailouts were due to the housing bubble?


----------



## somdrenter

DoWhat said:


> Wife and I may be selling our house.
> We put down an offer on this one.
> Advertisement - Real Estate Ads


Seeing how Avg Sale Price as a percentage of Avg List Price is around 90%, in addition to sales commission and transfer fees, they’d probably be pretty happy with your offer.


----------



## BoyGenius

somdrenter said:


> Seeing how Avg Sale Price as a percentage of Avg List Price is around 90%, in addition to sales commission and transfer fees, they’d probably be pretty happy with your offer.



Look it up, they bought it in 07 and are trying to sell it for $125k more than they purchased it for, not to mention it's assessed for less than they paid for it then.


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> Larry, give us some hard numbers. Say some retard read this thread back in October of 2007, took the advice, and bought one of those pre-fab trailers in San Souci for $170k. How much are they down now?
> 
> And don't hit me up with that "they've lost nothing till they sell' garbage, we're talking mark to market accounting here.



First off, mark to market is pure 100% fantasy and the dumbest idea in the last 5,000 years. Besides the DH rule. The best property in the universe isn't worth X dollars, right now, this very minute. It's worth what it's worth when it is bought and sold. Everything else is a suggestion based on recent sales and a fair idea of the pool of buyers, but still a guess. 

Mark to market is part of how we got in this mess in the first place. Mark to market is a real time heart monitor and stampede creator in a nation that works best on weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual accounting. It CREATES instability where stability is CRUCIAL.

Imagine if milk was valued several times a day. The shelf is kinda bare, up goes the price! The delivery truck blew a tire, up goes the price! Some mom just bought 3 of the last four gallons! There's three people heading for the dairy case and 4 cars just pulled into the parking lot! Quick! PANIC! That gallon is gotta be worth $100 to someone! 

Now, the reverse. The snow storm DIDN'T come, an Internet rumor said milk is bad for you, people are on vacation, the three gallon lady found out she is lactose intolerant and the delivery schedule got messed up and an extra milk delivery came; there's milk everywhere! Quick! Panic! Sell that milk for whatever you can get for it!!!!  

Secondly, who in the hell could have predicted in '07 that a GOP potus would take these drastic, huge and devastating steps towards socializing the economy? He pulled the rug out from under everyone and everything. He did NOT fix Fanny, he did not fix mark to market, he did not fix oil. He poured gasoline on the whole smouldering mess. 

So, the question; better to own or better to rent? 

If you've rented the last two years and it's cost $1,000 a month less to your cash flow, including the tax implications, then you have $24,000 more cash had you rented...depending on where you put that money. 

If it's in the bank, great.
Under your mattress. Great. Hope you don't get robbed.
Buried in the back yard. Great. It's not your back yard.
If it's in Citibank stock. It's gone. 
If it's in gold, great.
If you started a business with it, great. Depending on the business.

It's fine to argue renting is better. We would all be better off now if 8% of new homeowners the last 5-6 years did NOT get their loans. We'd all be better off if W hadn't socialized the economy. We'd be recovering now. We'd all be better off if Obama and Nancy and Harry hadn't just made it far worse. 

At some point, housing WILL settle into a fair supply and demand equilibrium and most, especially better properties will recover. If housing falls some more and you've now saved $36,000 because you rented yet my house starts going up $12,000 a year for 3 years, we're even and the question goes right back to the one I asked earlier that you are trying to avoid answering;

What do you do with that money you saved by renting as housing devalued?


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> First off, mark to market is pure 100% fantasy and the dumbest idea in the last 5,000 years. Besides the DH rule. The best property in the universe isn't worth X dollars, right now, this very minute. It's worth what it's worth when it is bought and sold. Everything else is a suggestion based on recent sales and a fair idea of the pool of buyers, but still a guess.
> 
> Mark to market is part of how we got in this mess in the first place. Mark to market is a real time heart monitor and stampede creator in a nation that works best on weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual accounting. It CREATES instability where stability is CRUCIAL.
> 
> Imagine if milk was valued several times a day. The shelf is kinda bare, up goes the price! The delivery truck blew a tire, up goes the price! Some mom just bought 3 of the last four gallons! There's three people heading for the dairy case and 4 cars just pulled into the parking lot! Quick! PANIC! That gallon is gotta be worth $100 to someone!
> 
> Now, the reverse. The snow storm DIDN'T come, an Internet rumor said milk is bad for you, people are on vacation, the three gallon lady found out she is lactose intolerant and the delivery schedule got messed up and an extra milk delivery came; there's milk everywhere! Quick! Panic! Sell that milk for whatever you can get for it!!!!
> 
> Secondly, who in the hell could have predicted in '07 that a GOP potus would take these drastic, huge and devastating steps towards socializing the economy? He pulled the rug out from under everyone and everything. He did NOT fix Fanny, he did not fix mark to market, he did not fix oil. He poured gasoline on the whole smouldering mess.
> 
> So, the question; better to own or better to rent?
> 
> If you've rented the last two years and it's cost $1,000 a month less to your cash flow, including the tax implications, then you have $24,000 more cash had you rented...depending on where you put that money.
> 
> If it's in the bank, great.
> Under your mattress. Great. Hope you don't get robbed.
> Buried in the back yard. Great. It's not your back yard.
> If it's in Citibank stock. It's gone.
> If it's in gold, great.
> If you started a business with it, great. Depending on the business.
> 
> It's fine to argue renting is better. We would all be better off now if 8% of new homeowners the last 5-6 years did NOT get their loans. We'd all be better off if W hadn't socialized the economy. We'd be recovering now. We'd all be better off if Obama and Nancy and Harry hadn't just made it far worse.
> 
> At some point, housing WILL settle into a fair supply and demand equilibrium and most, especially better properties will recover. If housing falls some more and you've now saved $36,000 because you rented yet my house starts going up $12,000 a year for 3 years, we're even and the question goes right back to the one I asked earlier that you are trying to avoid answering;
> 
> *What do you do with that money you saved by renting as housing devalued?*



I thought I pretty clearly stated a 5% FDIC insured savings account back in the time-frame this thread was started was the place to be. These days it would be in bonds.

http://forums.somd.com/consumer-fin...h-you-owned-your-own-home-19.html#post3619138

And I guess under your explanation of mark to market, when they send you a brokerage statement it should reflect what you paid for your stocks, and what they might sell for next week, not what they're trading at today. Can we do that for car loans too? Living outside of what things are worth in real-time is pure fantasy, you just don't want to come to terms with that. Making statements that your house may go up $12k a year is just as funny as the statements that were made in the opening lines of this thread. It may happen, it may not, but you can't back it up either way, and it's irresponsible to pretend it will, and that's the kind of stuff that kept the housing game going as long as it did.

And I'll reiterate what Somdrenter says: you guys like to use the classic excuse that people advocate renting as being superior to owning, while you all advocate the opposite, the truth is that has never been the case, what's been advocated is you rent until you can buy low and sell high. And to prop up home prices you to try to degrade people into thinking they're lower class citizens if they rent. This rental strategy provides the same quality of life and doesn't take down the economy. Who's going to be successful in San Souci: the guy who paid $70k in 1999, the guy who paid $206k in 2006, or the guy who pays $75k in 2010?

What do you have to say to the people that fell for these self-centered, delusional lines back in October 2007:

*Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.*

*So STOP that renting!!! Renting is for losers! The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.*

*"You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now."*


----------



## onebdzee

DoWhat said:


> Wife and I may be selling our house.
> We put down an offer on this one.
> Advertisement - Real Estate Ads



I remember when they built that house....it's nice

I expect my invite to the house warming party to NOT get lost in the mail


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> I thought I pretty clearly stated a 5% FDIC insured savings account back in the time-frame this thread was started was the place to be. These days it would be in bonds.
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/consumer-fin...h-you-owned-your-own-home-19.html#post3619138
> 
> And I guess under your explanation of mark to market, when they send you a brokerage statement it should reflect what you paid for your stocks, and what they might sell for next week, not what they're trading at today. Can we do that for car loans too? Living outside of what things are worth in real-time is pure fantasy, you just don't want to come to terms with that. Making statements that your house may go up $12k a year is just as funny as the statements that were made in the opening lines of this thread. It may happen, it may not, but you can't back it up either way, and it's irresponsible to pretend it will, and that's the kind of stuff that kept the housing game going as long as it did.
> 
> And I'll reiterate what Somdrenter says: you guys like to use the classic excuse that people advocate renting as being superior to owning, while you all advocate the opposite, the truth is that has never been the case, what's been advocated is you rent until you can buy low and sell high. And to prop up home prices you to try to degrade people into thinking they're lower class citizens if they rent. This rental strategy provides the same quality of life and doesn't take down the economy. Who's going to be successful in San Souci: the guy who paid $70k in 1999, the guy who paid $206k in 2006, or the guy who pays $75k in 2010?
> 
> What do you have to say to the people that fell for these self-centered, delusional lines back in October 2007:
> 
> *Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.*
> 
> *So STOP that renting!!! Renting is for losers! The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.*
> 
> *"You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now."*




Mark to market is a bad idea. It contributes to volatility. If you like volatility, I can see why you support the idea. 

I don't recall saying you are a loser for renting. I don't recall that I even know your living situation. I do know I think you are a loser because you make obstinate arguments, especially in this thread, whose sole purpose, based on what you say, is to eat popcorn and please yourself that you have won an argument without actually doing it. Me hoping my house appreciates has nothing to do with an oversupply of houses. I haven't bought any more or sold any more. So, your point is nonsensical. As usual. 

I think that's fine. Go eat popcorn. Pat yourself on the back. 

I think some people are better off renting, so, I think it's fine we have renters. 

I think, once again, an attempt at a conversation with you has been a waste of time.


----------



## Pete

BoyGenius said:


> I thought I pretty clearly stated a 5% FDIC insured savings account back in the time-frame this thread was started was the place to be. These days it would be in bonds.
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/consumer-fin...h-you-owned-your-own-home-19.html#post3619138
> 
> And I guess under your explanation of mark to market, when they send you a brokerage statement it should reflect what you paid for your stocks, and what they might sell for next week, not what they're trading at today. Can we do that for car loans too? Living outside of what things are worth in real-time is pure fantasy, you just don't want to come to terms with that. Making statements that your house may go up $12k a year is just as funny as the statements that were made in the opening lines of this thread. It may happen, it may not, but you can't back it up either way, and it's irresponsible to pretend it will, and that's the kind of stuff that kept the housing game going as long as it did.
> 
> And I'll reiterate what Somdrenter says: you guys like to use the classic excuse that people advocate renting as being superior to owning, while you all advocate the opposite, the truth is that has never been the case, what's been advocated is you rent until you can buy low and sell high. And to prop up home prices you to try to degrade people into thinking they're lower class citizens if they rent. This rental strategy provides the same quality of life and doesn't take down the economy. Who's going to be successful in San Souci: the guy who paid $70k in 1999, the guy who paid $206k in 2006, or the guy who pays $75k in 2010?
> 
> What do you have to say to the people that fell for these self-centered, delusional lines back in October 2007:
> 
> *Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.*
> 
> *So STOP that renting!!! Renting is for losers! The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.*
> 
> *"You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now."*



You have a complex


----------



## Larry Gude

Pete said:


> You have a complex



How many units? Might be a good business to be in seeings how renting is the better way and all.


----------



## BoyGenius

Pete said:


> You've still got your wealth intact



Damn straight, I do.


----------



## Pete

BoyGenius said:


> Damn straight, I do.



OK, mine is still intact as well.  I am thinking about ripping off my garage (car and a half ) and making it a 2 car and putting a bigger master bedroom above it.


----------



## Pete

BoyGenius said:


> I thought as part of the rules of the road we don't drag people's kids or mothers etc into these discussions?



You are right.  I apologize and deleted it.

No I just think it would improve the functionality.  You know since it is mine and all I can do that.  Then I can put my truck and Harley both in the garage without having to rearrange everything.


----------



## BoyGenius

Pete said:


> OK, mine is still intact as well.  I am thinking about ripping off my garage (car and a half ) and making it a 2 car and putting a bigger master bedroom above it.



Apology accepted and I apologize as well, I deleted mine, and was going to suggest it, but you had already did it.

I thought you wanted to get a bigger house somewhere house?

The problem with additions is if you overbuild over what the other houses are, you are not going to recover that money. If you're in a subdivision that's a huge problem, if the house is off by itself, not so much so.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> Mark to market is a bad idea. It contributes to volatility. If you like volatility, I can see why you support the idea.
> 
> I don't recall saying you are a loser for renting. I don't recall that I even know your living situation. I do know I think you are a loser because you make obstinate arguments, especially in this thread, whose sole purpose, based on what you say, is to eat popcorn and please yourself that you have won an argument without actually doing it. Me hoping my house appreciates has nothing to do with an oversupply of houses. I haven't bought any more or sold any more. So, your point is nonsensical. As usual.
> 
> I think that's fine. Go eat popcorn. Pat yourself on the back.
> 
> I think some people are better off renting, so, I think it's fine we have renters.
> 
> I think, once again, an attempt at a conversation with you has been a waste of time.



Larry, at this point this thread is a show trial. You know what that is right?

I'm just parading all the idiots that caused this mess (and those that helped) through the mud to make those that lost all their money feel better. You know, like Congress does on TV all the time. It's not gonna help, or get anyone their money back, but it makes for good forum TV, which helps your ratings.


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> Larry, at this point this thread is a show trial. You know what that is right?
> 
> I'm just parading all the idiots that caused this mess (and those that helped) through the mud to make those that lost all their money feel better. You know, like Congress does on TV all the time. It's not gonna help, or get anyone their money back, but it makes for good forum TV, which helps your ratings.



I, nor any other home owner, haven't lost a DIME until the home is actually...never mind.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> I, nor any other home owner, haven't lost a DIME until the home is actually...never mind.



Then how come all those people that haven't lost a dime can't refi and require a gov't bailout to do so?


----------



## Pete

BoyGenius said:


> Apology accepted and I apologize as well, I deleted mine, and was going to suggest it, but you had already did it.
> 
> I thought you wanted to get a bigger house somewhere house?
> 
> The problem with additions is if you overbuild over what the other houses are, you are not going to recover that money. If you're in a subdivision that's a huge problem, if the house is off by itself, not so much so.



With the market beaten down it is a good time for those with the werewithal to upgrade.  I like this house and I like its location best of all it could just be more functional.  Problem with houses around here to me is why would someone want to spend $400K + on a house on a half acre or less, 20 feet from your neighbor?  It is retarded IMO.

I got my house in 2003 from a buyer who was motivated and I have a 5% fixed.  I bought so my mortgage payment would fit my budget, not what I qualified for.  Even with the correction and another 20% projected I still have equity and I am 6 years closer to having no mortgate or rent in a sound house in a nice neighborhood.

Real estate will come back, it always does.  Will this place be worth $350K..no one knows but it certainly will be worth more than what I owe on it right now.

As far as outbuilding my neighborhood its not a worry.  This neighborhood is older and the lots are big and there are large very nice places mixed in.


----------



## Pete

BoyGenius said:


> Then how come all those people that haven't lost a dime can't refi and require a gov't bailout to do so?



Apples and oranges.  Those people were stupid and would lose no matter what.


----------



## kom526

BoyGenius said:


> Then how come all those people that haven't lost a dime can't refi and require a gov't bailout to do so?



No problems getting a refi and no bailout needed here.


----------



## DoWhat

Pete said:


> putting a bigger master bedroom above it.



I would like to put a second story above our attached garage and do the samething.


----------



## BoyGenius

Pete said:


> With the market beaten down it is a good time for those with the werewithal to upgrade.  I like this house and I like its location best of all it could just be more functional.  Problem with houses around here to me is why would someone want to spend $400K + on a house on a half acre or less, 20 feet from your neighbor?  It is retarded IMO.
> 
> I got my house in 2003 from a buyer who was motivated and I have a 5% fixed.  I bought so my mortgage payment would fit my budget, not what I qualified for.  Even with the correction and another 20% projected I still have equity and I am 6 years closer to having no mortgate or rent in a sound house in a nice neighborhood.
> 
> Real estate will come back, it always does.  Will this place be worth $350K..no one knows but it certainly will be worth more than what I owe on it right now.
> 
> As far as outbuilding my neighborhood its not a worry.  This neighborhood is older and the lots are big and there are large very nice places mixed in.



Sure, prices always come back after enough time for the pain of the latest bubble to be forgotten, and enough time for the legislation that will prevent another bubble to be repealed, if you live long enough.

File:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BoyGenius

kom526 said:


> No problems getting a refi and no bailout needed here.



Just so we don't get off track on that statement, I'll reiterate that I'm referring to all those folks that took out ARM or interest only loans on the advice of their mortgage lender, whom which got a higher fee for giving that type of loan, under the pretense that they could easily refi in a couple years because they would be rich from appreciation, but now find themselves horribly underwater in their mcmansion.


----------



## kom526

BoyGenius said:


> Just so we don't get off track on that statement, I'll reiterate that I'm referring to all those folks that took out ARM or interest only loans on the advice of their mortgage lender, whom which got a higher fee for giving that type of loan, under the pretense that they could easily refi in a couple years because they would be rich from appreciation, but now find themselves horribly underwater in their mcmansion.



Ok, gotcha.  You're talking about the ones who don't (or didn't) realize what the word adjustable meant. 

Here's a little tidbit that may factor into this thread, when we received our detailed appraisal report, the appraiser valued our property at a significantly lower value than what the county has us assessed at, but the house value was about the same as the last assessment.


----------



## BoyGenius

kom526 said:


> Ok, gotcha.  You're talking about the ones who don't (or didn't) realize what the word adjustable meant.
> 
> Here's a little tidbit that may factor into this thread, when we received our detailed appraisal report, the appraiser valued our property at a significantly lower value than what the county has us assessed at, but the house value was about the same as the last assessment.



And that should tell you how much pain the county and state has ahead in their financial future, especially if they keep buying land from failed developers at 2005 prices.

I'll get flamed for this, but if I was king for a day, here's what I would immediately change: all the crap legislation that makes property tax progressive, those caps, I'd do away with them ASAP. Why? They helped enable the bubble by letting taxes stay low while values soared in a very short period of time. It wouldn't have completely stopped the bubble, but it would have at least helped slow it. Plus the state and county would have collected their money in real-time versus fighting all the public outcry after that party.

I would also enforce the hell out of anything that is assessed as agricultural to make sure it is actually being used as that. If not, they'd pay like everyone else.

And I would do away with the capital gains write-offs that fuels people having multiple houses. The game was played since the mid 90's where I buy two houses. I live in one for a few years as a principal residence and rent the other. I sell the principal, don't pay the tax gains. Then I move to the other for a few years, it becomes the principal residence, then I sell it, and again, pay no gains taxes.

Homes being anything other than a place to live causes problems for your work force and in the long run harms your country and economic output. Home equity should be sweat equity from reliably paying your note each month, not flipping the thing like a stock on Wall Street.


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> Then how come all those people that haven't lost a dime can't refi and require a gov't bailout to do so?



You are consistent, I'll give you that. 

You mean the people who also put zero down, the ones who, in affect, simply 'rented' the home? That who your talking about?


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> You are consistent, I'll give you that.
> 
> You mean the people who also put zero down, the ones who, in affect, simply 'rented' the home? That who your talking about?



The people that did it right and put money down actually got screwed in most cases. Their money is gone. Right now, they're better off if they have no skin in the game and can walk away, or can hold their hand out and say "I need a principal write-down/bailout," or I'm going to walk away and default if you don't give it to me.


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> The people that did it right and put money down actually got screwed in most cases. Their money is gone. Right now, they're better off if they have no skin in the game and can walk away, or can hold their hand out and say "I need a principal write-down/bailout," or I'm going to walk away and default if you don't give it to me.



The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.


----------



## DoWhat

Larry Gude said:


> The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.


----------



## Baja28

Larry Gude said:


> The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> The people that 'did it right' didn't go for some outrageous balloon; they knew what they were doing and, as you say, did it right. You walked right into this one pal; the people who are causing the problem have done nothing more than what you recommend; rent a property.



We'll do this slow for you Larry. Let's use my San Souci scenario. You bought in 2006 for $206k and put $100k down. You now owe 100k and the foreclosure properties on the street are selling for $101k.  I bought in 2006 using an interest only loan next door for $206k, I put nothing down.

Scenario 1.: My lender now agrees to write down my loan to 31% of my income using Messiah taxpayer bailout dollars, therefore reducing my principal to $101k, just like you. The banks have no choice, because of the TARP strings, and they need the money or die. I've been rewarded for my stupidity and now have the same equity as you, none.

Scenario 2.: I've been paying interest only, which is was less than the rent amount and the principal amount others are paying. My home has now lost 50% of its value. I just walk away scott free, other than the credit ding and go rent something else. Due to the changes in the tax laws, if I do it before December 2009, I'm not taxed on the amount of loss that would previously have been considered income. During the foreclosure process I don't pay anything for 18 months as the foreclosure drags on with thousands of others.

Once again Larry, you have no clue how the game works.


----------



## bcp

BG seems to be leaving part of the long term ownership equaton out of his figures.
 he claims a house bought for 160k or whatever 10 years ago is now worth X% less because of the reduction in housing costs leaving the homeowner with a negative equity.
 however, during that 10 years, the house increased in value every year, so even with the decrease of this last year, the  average homeowner still has two things.
 1) positive equity
 2) stable payment based on the rates 10 years ago when the mortgage was first put in service.

 now the renter on the other hand, still has no equity, and his payment has gone up every year.

 so what if the homeowner has lost 50 grand on paper, the overall gain is still a large plus in most cases. 
what exactly does the renter have to show for his housing dollars over the same period? even if the house price is devalued to the original price, the home owner has only lost interest over that period, the renter? has lost everything. Nothing to show for his 10 years of payments.

 Ill keep the house thank you.


----------



## BoyGenius

*R U On Crack?*



bcp said:


> BG seems to be leaving part of the long term ownership equaton out of his figures.
> he claims a house bought for 160k or whatever 10 years ago is now worth X% less because of the reduction in housing costs leaving the homeowner with a negative equity.
> however, during that 10 years, the house increased in value every year, so even with the decrease of this last year, the  average homeowner still has two things.
> 1) positive equity
> 2) stable payment based on the rates 10 years ago when the mortgage was first put in service.
> 
> now the renter on the other hand, still has no equity, and his payment has gone up every year.
> 
> *so what if the homeowner has lost 50 grand on paper, the overall gain is still a large plus in most cases*.
> what exactly does the renter have to show for his housing dollars over the same period? even if the house price is devalued to the original price, the home owner has only lost interest over that period, the renter? has lost everything. Nothing to show for his 10 years of payments.
> 
> Ill keep the house thank you.



Why is it that you guys cannot grasp the concept that the only time-frame we are discussing is the bubble years? Nobody is assaulting homeownership, they are only assaulting the when you did it period.

If a guy walked out of college in 2005, should he have rented or bought a house in 2005 or 2010? Which scenario would make him wealthier.


----------



## bcp

BoyGenius said:


> Why is it that you guys cannot grasp the concept that the only time-frame we are discussing is the bubble years? Nobody is assaulting homeownership, they are only assaulting the when you did it period.
> 
> *If a guy walked out of college in 2005, should he have rented or bought a house in 2005 or 2010? Which scenario would make him wealthier.*


If a guy walked out of college in 2005 and purchased a home, and he is making the payments everymonth, his portfolio may show a slight drop right now because of the value of his home.
 however, if he sits on that home and continues to make his payments, where will he be in 2035?
 take the same guy that got out of college in 2005 and rented, where will he be in 2035.
 assume both are equally employed for the same period.

 fact is, the guy that bought might end up selling for the same that he bought it for right, or even a slight loss, but in the end his overall expense over the same period of time will be less than that of the renter who has no chance of recovering his shelter investments, or payments.

  I think, long run, providing the buyer is able to make payments, owning is the much better way to go, and the best way to retain some of your earned income over the years.

 I bought this house in 86, even with the drop in value I could still sell the property and come out close to 400k in profit. Now, what would I be looking at if I would have rented for that same period of time? is the landord going to share earned equity with me when I leave?


----------



## somdrenter

bcp said:


> If a guy walked out of college in 2005 and purchased a home, and he is making the payments everymonth, his portfolio may show a slight drop right now because of the value of his home.
> however, if he sits on that home and continues to make his payments, where will he be in 2035?
> take the same guy that got out of college in 2005 and rented, where will he be in 2035.
> assume both are equally employed for the same period.
> 
> fact is, the guy that bought might end up selling for the same that he bought it for right, or even a slight loss, but in the end his overall expense over the same period of time will be less than that of the renter who has no chance of recovering his shelter investments, or payments.
> 
> I think, long run, providing the buyer is able to make payments, owning is the much better way to go, and the best way to retain some of your earned income over the years.
> 
> I bought this house in 86, even with the drop in value I could still sell the property and come out close to 400k in profit. Now, what would I be looking at if I would have rented for that same period of time? is the landord going to share earned equity with me when I leave?


1986? 2035? Why not 1896? You seem to miss the gist. Were talking bubble years. And the scenario(s) you described do not account for purchasing during the bubble years, and/or they do not account for the monies saved by renting for about ½ the cost of purchasing during the bubble years. 1986? I mean come on, why not make it 1886? And 2035? No one has advocated renting long term, much less 30 years.

Given all the market indicators; inventory, foreclosures, and for Christ sakes bailouts, just to name a few, you’d think more than one other would imagine _“gee, somethings gone and went awry”_

Even with our local downturn, the average home is still around 3.5x family income. Still not quite close to historic levels of affordability. We’ll need another $94k drop in average prices before we get back to something resembling historic levels. And we’re looking for a turnaround in the next few years? Sure, I’ll concede a quick turn around, so long as income rises to match those prices and/or, the return to loose lending and toxic mortgages.


----------



## somdrenter

Analysis: Giant home loans were still going strong in 2007 - USATODAY.com
Cool map.


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> Analysis: Giant home loans were still going strong in 2007 - USATODAY.com
> Cool map.



THAT is illustrative! Good find!


----------



## BoyGenius

BoyGenius said:


> My bad, make that $70k, more when you tack on the sales commission and transfer fees.
> 
> 45943 SHIELDS CT SAN SOUCI CALIFORNIA MD - HomesDatabase
> 
> 45943 Shields Ct.
> 
> By the way, that listed price amount is $12k under it's 2003 sales price.
> 
> We'll check back in five years on this one and see who we get to label a dumbass.



*$79,950**

Hello 1998 Baby!

Next stop 1996!!!*


----------



## jetmonkey

BoyGenius said:


> *$79,950**
> 
> Hello 1998 Baby!
> 
> Next stop 1996!!!*



*This is great news, Lexington Park has needed some affordable housing since the Flat Tops was bulldozed *


----------



## CrashTest

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.

I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.


----------



## BoyGenius

CrashTest said:


> Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.
> 
> I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.



Nobody likes to mention that because it doesn't allow you to get any suckers back in the game under the pretense that: "yeah, we're down, but prices always come back and rise even more!"


----------



## DoWhat

BoyGenius said:


> Nobody likes to mention that because it doesn't allow you to get any suckers back in the game under the pretense that: "yeah, we're down, but prices always come back and rise even more!"



:rentboy:

:becausehedoesn'thaveanymoneytobuyhisownplace:


----------



## BoyGenius

DoWhat said:


> :rentboy:
> 
> :becausehedoesn'thaveanymoneytobuyhisownplace:



You know, it's not too late for you to get that bailout.


----------



## Larry Gude

CrashTest said:


> Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.
> 
> I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.



Winning loto ticket, no. However, ones home, something you bought and paid for, most people over 15-30 years, the core of ones adult life, is supposed to be your future security, the piece of the American pie that you _own._ 

Whatever someone does or does not do, being able to live your life as you see fit and buy and pay for and own that piece of property is the ultimate symbol of being free of having accomplished a fundamental thing and having taken care of your personal business, having been a good and successful citizen over time. 

It is incumbent on government to protect and preserve this most American of 
ideas as the cornerstone promotion of the general welfare. 

It is a crime of local, state and federal government when this is not a core value, a principle.


----------



## DoWhat

BoyGenius said:


> You know, it's not too late for you to get that bailout.



If you only knew young boy.


----------



## Baja28

The renters American dream.....


----------



## Baja28

The home owners American dream.....


----------



## CrashTest

Larry Gude said:


> Winning loto ticket, no. However, ones home, something you bought and paid for, most people over 15-30 years, the core of ones adult life, is supposed to be your future security, the piece of the American pie that you _own._
> 
> Whatever someone does or does not do, being able to live your life as you see fit and buy and pay for and own that piece of property is the ultimate symbol of being free of having accomplished a fundamental thing and having taken care of your personal business, having been a good and successful citizen over time.
> 
> It is incumbent on government to protect and preserve this most American of
> ideas as the cornerstone promotion of the general welfare.
> 
> It is a crime of local, state and federal government when this is not a core value, a principle.



Agree 100%.  Just trying to point out that people who are counting on values doubling every 4-5 years have short memories.  It's simply not normal.


----------



## BoyGenius

Baja28 said:


> The home owners American dream.....



That can't be yours. There's no appliances or old cars in the yard.


----------



## Larry Gude

CrashTest said:


> Agree 100%.  Just trying to point out that people who are counting on values doubling every 4-5 years have short memories.  It's simply not normal.



That's right. In any event, it should be a government responsibility to protect property values.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> That's right. In any event, it should be a government responsibility to protect property values.



So how exactly should "government" go about protecting property values?


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> So how exactly should "government" go about protecting property values?



Zoning laws is #1 and the local and state responsibility. 

Lending regulations would be #2 and a federal issue. 

Monetary policy would be #3. Feds.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> Zoning laws is #1 and the local and state responsibility.
> 
> Lending regulations would be #2 and a federal issue.
> 
> Monetary policy would be #3. Feds.



And where does capitalism fit into that equation?


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> And where does capitalism fit into that equation?



Capitalize on the existing, fair and reasonable rules.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> Capitalize on the existing, fair and reasonable rules.



I guess what I'm saying is, I don't disagree with your three rules presented, but I don't think it's right to summarize their goal as strictly/mainly to protect property values.


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> I guess what I'm saying is, I don't disagree with your three rules presented, but I don't think it's right to summarize their goal as strictly/mainly to protect property values.



There is no other purpose. It's like rules for savings accounts or ownership of your car or the dollar in your pocket. Governments economic job is stability so that capitalism and capitalize.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> Capitalize on the existing, fair and reasonable rules.



I'll tell you one thing I would change that would make it real easy to spot the crooks in the future: I would make it a requirement that each deed and loan contract on the Maryland online land records had the name of the appraiser, the amount of the appraisal, the name of all real estate agents involved, and the company and name of the mortgage brokers involved.

If you had that kind of data to look at the crooks would be dead in the water.


----------



## Larry Gude

BoyGenius said:


> I'll tell you one thing I would change that would make it real easy to spot the crooks in the future: I would make it a requirement that each deed and loan contract on the Maryland online land records had the name of the appraiser, the amount of the appraisal, the name of all real estate agents involved, and the company and name of the mortgage brokers involved.
> 
> If you had that kind of data to look at the crooks would be dead in the water.



I would NOT object ot that.


----------



## BoyGenius

Larry Gude said:


> I would NOT object ot that.



They're all supposedly licensed and regulated by the state, so my take would be, "what do you possibly have to hide?"


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> The home owners American dream.....


Ah yes...the dream


----------



## CrashTest

Larry Gude said:


> That's right. In any event, it should be a government responsibility to protect property values.



Whoa Comrade - that's where I have a huge problem.


----------



## Larry Gude

CrashTest said:


> Whoa Comrade - that's where I have a huge problem.



Yeah, you and the whole nation.


----------



## DallasRed

What about people that cant sell their current home..And have to move.  Is it stupid to RENT then?


----------



## jetmonkey

DallasRed said:


> What about people that cant sell their current home..And have to move.  Is it stupid to RENT then?



It's not stupid to do anything appropriate to your circumstances. There are just a few people here that cannot accept that others have made good financial decisions that do not reflect their own experience :shrug:


----------



## DallasRed

jetmonkey said:


> It's not stupid to do anything appropriate to your circumstances. There are just a few people here that cannot accept that others have made good financial decisions that do not reflect their own experience :shrug:



I am scared to buy another house.  The thought of having to sell 2 houses in 3 years....UHHHHHHHHHH


----------



## BoyGenius

jetmonkey said:


> It's not stupid to do anything appropriate to your circumstances. There are just a few people here that cannot accept that others have made good financial decisions that do not reflect their own experience :shrug:



That's great news. All the folks that made stupid decisions are counting on you few geniuses that keep bragging about how smart your are about homeownership to bail them out.

Get your check in the mail today, they need it now!


----------



## jetmonkey

BoyGenius said:


> That's great news. All the folks that made stupid decisions are counting on you few geniuses that keep bragging about how smart your are about homeownership to bail them out.
> 
> Get your check in the mail today, they need it now!



my irony meter assplodes


----------



## Baja28

BoyGenius said:


> That's great news. All the folks that made stupid decisions are counting on you few geniuses that keep bragging about how smart your are about homeownership to bail them out.
> 
> Get your check in the mail today, they need it now!


Sorry charlie, you renters will pay too!  The difference is we'll own our home and not have payments.

Whereas you'll just keep paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying...... get ma drift??


----------



## BoyGenius

Baja28 said:


> Sorry charlie, you renters will retire richer!  The difference is people like me, we'll always believe we'll own our home and not the bank.
> 
> Whereas you'll just keep socking money away in your savings account as the homes around me go into foreclosure, and I'll just keep saying blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,...... get ma drift??


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Sorry charlie, you renters will pay too!  The difference is we'll own our home and not have payments.
> 
> Whereas you'll just keep paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying and paying...... get ma drift??


Straw man


> A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


----------



## smilin

BoyGenius said:


> I'll tell you one thing I would change that would make it real easy to spot the crooks in the future: I would make it a requirement that each deed and loan contract on the Maryland online land records had the name of the appraiser, the amount of the appraisal, the name of all real estate agents involved, and the company and name of the mortgage brokers involved.
> 
> If you had that kind of data to look at the crooks would be dead in the water.



Been to a settlement lately?
Guess not with an out of date statement like this.
You want it online, contact your local government.


----------



## somdrenter

smilin said:


> Been to a settlement lately?
> Guess not with an out of date statement like this.
> You want it online, contact your local government.


If the statement is out of date, why would it be necessary to contact the local government to get it online?


----------



## BoyGenius

smilin said:


> Been to a settlement lately?
> Guess not with an out of date statement like this.
> You want it online, contact your local government.



Lately?

Just what are you admitting to that was happening before?


----------



## Baja28

BoyGenius said:


>


See you're very confused.  I just paid off my home at 47.  I own it, not the bank.  All that $$ that was going to the bank now goes into my savings acct.  Yours keeps going to your landlord.  Not only that, I have a nice equity line available to me (with tax write offs) should I like to use it. 

So if you're that delusional to think you can "sock away money", I won't even feel sorry for ya when reality sets in.  

Who's better off?


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Straw man


See post 289.  

And remember, rent is due the first of the month.  That's about a week away.  

Myself, I'm going to take that payment I used to send to the bank and drop in in the "Mikey wants a new toy" fund.


----------



## BoyGenius

CrashTest said:


> Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but between 1990 - 2000, average home prices in Maryland fell 1.1%.
> 
> I think it's unrealistic to think homes are going to once again become everyone's personal winning lotto ticket.



I noticed this one this morning while looking at a listed property. Drives home your point of price stagnation.

Bought in 1991 for $178,210 and sold in 1999 for $178,000. When you consider that most of the interest on a 30 year loan is loaded into the first ten years, you could possibly end up writing a check to pay the sales commissions and transfer fees in a scenario such as this if you used 100% financing such as a VA or FHA loan.


----------



## Baja28

BoyGenius said:


> What's this have to do with Michelle Obama?


I'm hoping she'll be proud of me.


----------



## Baja28

BoyGenius said:


>


ostdeleter:


----------



## BoyGenius

Baja28 said:


> ostdeleter:



I figured it would be better not to get the thread all screwed up and off topic.


----------



## smilin

Baja28 said:


> See you're very confused.  I just paid off my home at 47.  I own it, not the bank.  All that $$ that was going to the bank now goes into my savings acct.  Yours keeps going to your landlord.  Not only that, I have a nice equity line available to me (with tax write offs) should I like to use it.
> 
> So if you're that delusional to think you can "sock away money", I won't even feel sorry for ya when reality sets in.
> 
> Who's better off?



You beat me by a year! I pay $2000 (tax) a year to live in my horrible investment.
My car is paid off too. 
Maybe if I paid rent I could be better off?


BTW - at settlement, the agents were required to sign and loan officers had to be disclosed. Appraisers? Banks hire them, buyers pay them, nobody is allowed (now) to contact them.
I agree though, it should all be posted on a public site.


----------



## somdrenter

BoyGenius said:


> I figured it would be better not to get the thread all screwed up and off topic.


Tooooo late.....


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> See post 289.
> 
> And remember, rent is due the first of the month.  That's about a week away.
> 
> Myself, I'm going to take that payment I used to send to the bank and drop in in the "Mikey wants a new toy" fund.


And I’m going to use the money I saved by renting, to add to my current down payment funds for a well cared for foreclosure….or maybe this month we’ll take a trip out west…..or maybe I too will add it to the toy fund…what’s your point Mike?? Do you not believe there was a housing bubble? Do you simply not believe that Tax Payers are bailing out homeowners? Your current comments do not reflect the reality that has come to light in the last few months. Sure, 12 months ago I could somewhat understand the “tin foil hat” comments, but now, with the trillions the government is dolling out to pay for this mess? Come on Mike…something went awry..care to pontificate or just continue with the Jr. High antics?


----------



## somdrenter

smilin said:


> BTW - at settlement, the agents were required to sign and loan officers had to be disclosed. Appraisers? Banks hire them, buyers pay them, nobody is allowed (now) to contact them.
> I agree though, it should all be posted on a public site.


If no one is allowed to contact them...how are the appraisals being scheduled?


----------



## BoyGenius

smilin said:


> You beat me by a year! I pay $2000 (tax) a year to live in my horrible investment.
> My car is paid off too.
> Maybe if I paid rent I could be better off?
> 
> 
> *BTW - at settlement, the agents were required to sign and loan officers had to be disclosed. Appraisers? Banks hire them, buyers pay them, nobody is allowed (now) to contact them.
> I agree though, it should all be posted on a public site.*



So at first you dissed me for making that statement, but now you agree with me?



Here's my logic: if all that data is public it would serve as the equivalent of a neighborhood watch. Just like the cops can't be everywhere and get the citizens to help report crime, the housing industry could be policed much the same way, but that can be accomplished only if the information is available for viewing.

We all know the savvy neighbors look at the property records of new buyers in a neighborhood out of sheer curiosity anyway.


----------



## BoyGenius

somdrenter said:


> And I’m going to use the money I saved by renting, to add to my current down payment funds for a well cared for foreclosure….or maybe this month we’ll take a trip out west…..or maybe I too will add it to the toy fund…what’s your point Mike?? Do you not believe there was a housing bubble? Do you simply not believe that Tax Payers are bailing out homeowners? Your current comments do not reflect the reality that has come to light in the last few months. Sure, 12 months ago I could somewhat understand the “tin foil hat” comments, but now, with the trillions the government is dolling out to pay for this mess? Come on Mike…something went awry..care to pontificate or just continue with the Jr. High antics?



I'd love to hear where in the historic sales cycle (high prices or low prices) that all these braggarts made their purchases. They didn't mind leading the 2006/2007 buyers to the slaughterhouse with their "buy now, at any price" comments, did they?


----------



## somdrenter

BoyGenius said:


> So at first you dissed me for making that statement, but now you agree with me?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my logic: if all that data is public it would serve as the equivalent of a neighborhood watch. Just like the cops can't be everywhere and get the citizens to help report crime, the housing industry could be policed much the same way, but that can be accomplished only if the information is available for viewing.
> 
> We all know the savvy neighbors look at the property records of new buyers in a neighborhood out of sheer curiosity anyway.


Sh@#, any local fraud that was somewhat news worthy only made it to light because of a few local bloggers, not the NAR or its constituencies.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> And I’m going to use the money I saved by renting, to add to my current down payment funds for a well cared for foreclosure….or maybe this month we’ll take a trip out west…..or maybe I too will add it to the toy fund…what’s your point Mike?? Do you not believe there was a housing bubble? Do you simply not believe that Tax Payers are bailing out homeowners? Your current comments do not reflect the reality that has come to light in the last few months. Sure, 12 months ago I could somewhat understand the “tin foil hat” comments, but now, with the trillions the government is dolling out to pay for this mess? Come on Mike…something went awry..care to pontificate or just continue with the Jr. High antics?


I have and still fail to see where renting is cheaper and better than owning.  My mortgage payment was cheaper than any rent payment anywhere. It was $792.00/month. I doubled up on it and paid off the place in half the time. 

Where can you rent a nice, 2500 sq. ft. house for $800.00/month?? 

I never said nothing went awry....it did.  Banks and dum dums made/accepted loans that never should have happened.  And they should be allowed to go bankrupt too. 

 I am disputing you and Genius statements that you're getting rich by renting.  If you have all this income that allows you to pay rent ($1,500.00/mth) and sock away a toy fund then you'd have bought a house long before now. I'm not buying it.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> I have and still fail to see where renting is cheaper and better than owning.  My mortgage payment was cheaper than any rent payment anywhere. It was $792.00/month. I doubled up on it and paid off the place in half the time.
> 
> Where can you rent a nice, 2500 sq. ft. house for $800.00/month??
> 
> I never said nothing went awry....it did.  Banks and dum dums made/accepted loans that never should have happened.  And they should be allowed to go bankrupt too.
> 
> I am disputing you and Genius statements that you're getting rich by renting.  If you have all this income that allows you to pay rent ($1,500.00/mth) and sock away a toy fund then you'd have bought a house long before now. I'm not buying it.


Baja, I don’t know what to tell ya. I didn’t say I was getting “rich” by renting (another one of your straw man arguments) What I did say, is that I am renting at ~½ the cost of buying a comparable home. (well, prices have gone down a little, so maybe not quite ½ anymore)

A $792/month mortgage payment…….$792….…and this was during the bubble years? The average home price in 08 for Saint Mary’s was $324,123.00. That’s a little over 3.5x income…in other words a price/income ratio high enough to easily qualify for the current housing bailout. That is of course, unless you put down one hefty down payment.

With a house payment of $792, hell yea, the current average family income should have little problem in paying that off rather quickly. I can see now where you’re seeing some discrepancy in the housing bubble mess and your current situation. 

Is my rent/purchase/income ratio indicative of everyone? _Absolutely _not. Is your $792/month/income/average home price ratio indicative of current market situations? I would hope you would agree that it is not.


----------



## chuckster

somdrenter said:


> And I’m going to use the money I saved by renting, to add to my current down payment funds for a well cared for foreclosure….or maybe this month we’ll take a trip out west…..or maybe I too will add it to the toy fund…what’s your point Mike?? Do you not believe there was a housing bubble? Do you simply not believe that Tax Payers are bailing out homeowners? Your current comments do not reflect the reality that has come to light in the last few months. Sure, 12 months ago I could somewhat understand the “tin foil hat” comments, but now, with the trillions the government is dolling out to pay for this mess? Come on Mike…something went awry..care to pontificate or just continue with the Jr. High antics?



I to have been sitting back, renting, waiting for the bubble to burst. I could not believe all of the greed and crazyness that caused the bubble in the first place. Well now is my time to strike with rates below 5% and bank owned houses selling for less than half of what they sold for 2 years ago. The two houses that I have looked at are over 3600 sq ft with an original cost of $400,000 in 2006-07. My offers have gone in around $200,000 with ALL closing paid by the bank. One came back with the bank asking for $3000. more than I want to pay so I increased my offer by $1000. Should hear back next week if they are going to take it. Oh yea, I can also get that $8000. credit from IRS and when I figured my taxes for 2008, because I can claim the purchase this filing, I will receive $7900. in cash back.  Do I feel sorry for the people who got tied up in all the greed of the housing bubble? No way. I am glad that we rented and waited for the big burst


----------



## BoyGenius

chuckster said:


> I to have been sitting back, renting, waiting for the bubble to burst. I could not believe all of the greed and crazyness that caused the bubble in the first place. Well now is my time to strike with rates below 5% and bank owned houses selling for less than half of what they sold for 2 years ago. The two houses that I have looked at are over 3600 sq ft with an original cost of $400,000 in 2006-07. My offers have gone in around $200,000 with ALL closing paid by the bank. One came back with the bank asking for $3000. more than I want to pay so I increased my offer by $1000. Should hear back next week if they are going to take it. Oh yea, I can also get that $8000. credit from IRS and when I figured my taxes for 2008, because I can claim the purchase this filing, I will receive $7900. in cash back.  Do I feel sorry for the people who got tied up in all the greed of the housing bubble? No way. I am glad that we rented and waited for the big burst



You know Baja doesn't quite understand how guys like you are getting rich, but oh well, it makes him feel good trying to keep you down.


----------



## somdrenter

chuckster said:


> I to have been sitting back, renting, waiting for the bubble to burst. I could not believe all of the greed and crazyness that caused the bubble in the first place. Well now is my time to strike with rates below 5% and bank owned houses selling for less than half of what they sold for 2 years ago. The two houses that I have looked at are over 3600 sq ft with an original cost of $400,000 in 2006-07. My offers have gone in around $200,000 with ALL closing paid by the bank. One came back with the bank asking for $3000. more than I want to pay so I increased my offer by $1000. Should hear back next week if they are going to take it. Oh yea, I can also get that $8000. credit from IRS and when I figured my taxes for 2008, because I can claim the purchase this filing, I will receive $7900. in cash back.  Do I feel sorry for the people who got tied up in all the greed of the housing bubble? No way. I am glad that we rented and waited for the big burst


----------



## chuckster

BoyGenius said:


> You know Baja doesn't quite understand how guys like you are getting rich, but oh well, it makes him feel good trying to keep you down.



The other thing is, if I do not get one of the houses that I now have bids on, oh well. There are so many houses in the same situation that we can keep on looking and bidding until something connects. Now if I find one that I really want, then I might have to increase the bid some but the ball is in a buyers court.
What pisses me off right now are the home owners who think that they are still going to make a killing selling their houses. If you paid $120,000 for your house 3 years ago, what makes you think for a second that it is worth $255,000 now. Houses are not lottery tickets. Think some people are still watching old reruns of "Flip My House" and  think they are going to cash in.
Had on property agree to pay the closing costs but wanted to increase the price of the house by that much. Are you kidding me? Not gonna happen. Well now thay realize that the house might not sell as fast as they thought and they want me to look at their property again before they get stuck with 2 mortgage payments because they have to move. They should have taken my first offer because the next one, if I do it, will be less. Sorry for that


----------



## somdrenter

chuckster said:


> They should have taken my first offer because the next one, if I do it, will be less. Sorry for that


Absolutely. If the seller is calling you back, your offer should be less


----------



## BoyGenius

*Columbia Commons Town Houses*

46361 Block of Columbus Drive, Lexington Park, year built 1991.

Initial Sales Price: 05/13/1991, Price: $84,930

High Price Point: 03/08/2006, Price: $180,000

Low Price Point: 12/28/2001, Price: $56,000

Current Foreclosure *Asking* Price: $97,900

- Property Finder


----------



## jetmonkey

BoyGenius said:


> Columbus Drive, Lexington Park, year built 1991.
> 
> Initial Sales Price: 05/13/1991, Price: $84,930
> 
> High Price Point: 03/08/2006, Price: $180,000
> 
> Current Foreclosure *Asking* Price: $97,900
> 
> - Property Finder



Wow, that's going to be a great deal for someone


----------



## BoyGenius

jetmonkey said:


> Wow, that's going to be a great deal for someone



I don't know about that, I was just fixing to edit in the low price point: $56,000.


----------



## somdrenter




----------



## somdrenter




----------



## Wenchy

BoyGenius said:


> I don't know about that, I was just fixing to edit in the low price point: $56,000.



Are you buying it?  

It's darn cute in the picture.  I don't know the area and I figure the pic was not taken recently (photo says 2006...I'm thinking 1991 when it was first built)


----------



## HighTechRedneck

Well damn, I wish I could buy some property. But I'm sure Oh Great Leader will make a move that will make the economy just get worse. Just when it's starting to even out, he wants to give 1 Billion to the IMF or something.


----------



## somdrenter

HighTechRedneck said:


> Well damn, I wish I could buy some property. But I'm sure Oh Great Leader will make a move that will make the economy just get worse. Just when it's starting to even out, he wants to give 1 Billion to the IMF or something.


Awww come on, take the plunge. Ya get $8k to do so and a bailout if you can’t (or won’t) pay your mortgage.


----------



## HighTechRedneck

somdrenter said:


> Awww come on, take the plunge. Ya get $8k to do so and a bailout if you can’t (or won’t) pay your mortgage.



Hmm, maybe I'll just lose my job, and collect some money from Obama, and do that haha
I only make around 8K a year right now  But I really like working where I do.

If I get a better paying job anytime soon I definitely planned on looking into it.


----------



## somdrenter

HighTechRedneck said:


> Hmm, maybe I'll just lose my job, and collect some money from Obama, and do that haha
> I only make around 8K a year right now  But I really like working where I do.
> 
> If I get a better paying job anytime soon I definitely planned on looking into it.


And to think, not too long ago you’d easily “qualify” for a half-million-dollar McMansion….and a bailout to boot.


----------



## BoyGenius

somdrenter said:


> And to think, not too long ago you’d easily “qualify” for a half-million-dollar McMansion….and a bailout to boot.



And that was before he got his latest pay raise.


----------



## somdrenter

*For Housing Crisis, the End Probably Isn’t Near*



> The glut of foreclosed homes creates a self-reinforcing cycle. Falling prices lead to more foreclosures. Foreclosures lead to an excess supply of homes for sale. The excess supply then leads to further price declines. Jan Hatzius, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, says that the “massive amount of excess supply” means that home prices nationwide will probably fall an additional 15 percent. ...
> 
> ...They don’t have as far to fall today [compared to a year ago], but the great real estate crash is not over, either. So if you are part of the 30 percent of American households who rent and you’re trying to decide when to buy, relax.


The New York Times >


----------



## somdrenter

*Know how much a bubble home is worth in CA?*

About this much:




Now that is extreme home makeovers.


----------



## Pete

It is not exactly as you are portraying it.  The bank decided it was cheaper to destroy the partially built homes than it was to pay the daily code enforcement fines and finish them and then sit on them until they sold.  Since it looks like a subdivision it would not even be as simple as finish them and sell them cheap.  The bank would be on the hook to develop and pave roads, storm water management, street lighting, utilities, landscaping, errosion control and so on.

It is not like they are destroying people ready homes in a viable subdivision.


----------



## BoyGenius

somdrenter said:


> About this much:
> 
> Now that is extreme home makeovers.



When they get done can you send them down to Ridge?

16420 Pine Street


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> It is not exactly as you are portraying it.  The bank decided it was cheaper to destroy the partially built homes than it was to pay the daily code enforcement fines and finish them and then sit on them until they sold.


Soooooooo , the homes are _worth _more to the bank razed, than standing. And this would be portrayed as…??


----------



## BoyGenius

*Colony Square Town Houses*

Rogers Drive, Lexington Park, year built 1974:

Initial Sales Price: Unknown

High Price Point: 10/2006, Price: $155,000

Low Price Point: 02/1999, Price: $43,015

Current Foreclosure *Asking* Price: $35,000

Tax Assessment: $149,130 (Uh Oh Mr. Tax Man!)

Rogers Drive 

A favorite killing ground during the bubble for the home flippers.


----------



## somdrenter

*Homes: Almost 20% cheaper*



vraiblonde said:


> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.





> S&P/Case-Shiller index reports huge decline of 19.1% for the first quarter
> 
> By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
> Last Updated: May 26, 2009: 9:48 AM ET
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The home price slide accelerated during the first three months of 2009, according to a report issued Tuesday.
> 
> The S&P/Case-Shiller National Home Price index, a bellwether of real-estate market direction, plunged a record 19.1% during the quarter compared with the first three months of 2008. That followed an 18.2% drop last quarter.
> 
> The Case-Shiller 20-city index dropped 18.7% year-over-year, also a record. It fell 18.5% during the last three months of 2008. This index has plummeted 32.2% from its July 2006 peak and has fallen 32 straight months.
> 
> The national index covers almost all homes sold throughout the United States and is reported quarterly, while the 20-city index reports sales in 20 major metro areas and represents a cross section of the national market. The 20-city index comes out every month.
> 
> "Declines in residential real estate continued at a steady pace into March," said David Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor's in a prepared statement. "All 20 metro areas are still showing negative annual rates of change in average home prices with nine of the metro areas having record annual declines."


Home prices plunge almost 20% - May. 26, 2009


----------



## Pete

somdrenter said:


> Soooooooo , the homes are _worth _more to the bank razed, than standing. And this would be portrayed as…??



No, you evidently did not read the article nor my post.  I suspect you did but you are ignoring the point on purpose because it defeats the intent of your post.  These _partially built buildings_ are less a liability (it is cheaper)  to the bank razed than to pay the daily, weekly or monthly code violation fines and complete them then sit on them until they sold at a discounted price in this market.


----------



## somdrenter

Pete said:


> No, you evidently did not read the article nor my post.  I suspect you did but you are ignoring the point on purpose because it defeats the intent of your post.  These _partially built buildings_ are less a liability *(it is cheaper)  to the bank razed than *to pay the daily, weekly or monthly code violation fines and complete them then sit on them until they sold at a discounted price in this market.



I agree Pete, I agree.


----------



## somdrenter

*Hidden Inventory*



> Are Banks Keeping Foreclosed Homes Off the Market?
> Posted by: Chris Palmeri on May 21
> 
> Buyers looking to purchase foreclosures should still have plenty of opportunities. *Only 30% of bank-owned properties are listed on the multiple listing services,* says Rick Sharga, senior vice president at foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac. He figures banks still own as many as 500,000 properties that they want to sell but haven’t put on the market.
> 
> A home many not be listed because the bank is wrestling with title, repair or owner right of redemption issues. (Several states such as Michigan and Wisconsin give the previous owners the chance to buy back a home that’s been foreclosed on). Banks may also be holding houses off the market because selling them now would lower prices even further. Foreclosures typically sell at a 31% discount to similar homes whose owners aren’t in distress. Listing all those homes now, Sharga says, “would have a devastating impact on inventory and pricing.”


Are Banks Keeping Foreclosed Homes Off the Market? - BusinessWeek


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> Home prices plunge almost 20% - May. 26, 2009



Not good.


----------



## somdrenter

Larry Gude said:


> Not good.


The Dow is climbing, consumer confidence has had an uptick, bailouts are being handed out and housing is becoming more affordable every day. What’s “not good”?


----------



## Larry Gude

somdrenter said:


> The Dow is climbing, consumer confidence has had an uptick, bailouts are being handed out and housing is becoming more affordable every day. What’s “not good”?



The lost value. The DOW at 8600 sounds great. Unless you were in at 12,000


----------



## somdrenter

*Mortgage delinquencies hit record high in Q1*



> May 28, 2009
> 
> BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
> NEW YORK---- An industry report shows that a record 12 percent of homeowners with a mortgage are behind on their payments or in foreclosure as the housing crisis spreads to borrowers with good credit.
> 
> The Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday the foreclosure rate on prime fixed-rate loans doubled in the last year, and now represents the largest share of new foreclosures. Nearly 6 percent of fixed-rate mortgages to borrowers with good credit were in the foreclosure process.


Mortgage delinquencies hit record high in Q1 :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Business


----------



## Vince

somdrenter said:


> The Dow is climbing, consumer confidence has had an uptick, bailouts are being handed out and housing is becoming more affordable every day. What’s “not good”?


 So when are you buying your first home?


----------



## somdrenter

Vince said:


> So when are you buying your first home?


For what? Old times sake? The weather would be a bit nicer, but the commute would be a killer.


----------



## somdrenter

*Phantom Homes*



> Carl Gutierrez, 07.02.09, 05:30 PM EDT
> Hundres of thousands of foreclosed homes are hidden from the market's eye.
> 
> There is a "phantom inventory" in the United States housing industry, hidden from the eyes of analysts and investors, and distorting the market's landscape.
> 
> Steven Hagenbuckle, managing principal at TerraCap Partners, a distressed real estate private equity fund, expects to see the beginning of the release of the phantom inventory in the next 90 to 180 days, though the inventory influx will come in different waves throughout the country.
> 
> The hidden inventory is composed of REOs, or "real estate owned", properties. Hagenbuckle found that between May 2008 and May 2009, there were a total of 3,734,711 foreclosure filings, and of those total filings, 26.4%, or 985,571, were REOs, These homes are otherwise hidden from view, while the rest are listed to the public through the multiple listing service, or "MLS", system.
> 
> In the case of REOs, banks will takeover foreclosed properties, sell the blocks to interim investors who then sell it to the homeowner. For example, a bank will take 50 bad residential properties, and bundle them together at a discount from anywhere *between 40 to 60 cents on the dollar*, and put them out for bid as a package. Ostensibly, a large number of sales could occur, but the market wouldn’t know about it because it's hidden from the view of normal public channels.



Phantom Homes - Forbes.com


----------



## somdrenter

*More Prime Borrowers Delinquent on Mortgages*



> Spreading Problem: More Prime Borrowers Delinquent on Mortgages
> 
> By Nick Timiraos
> Mortgage delinquencies show few signs of slowing down, according to data from an industry-wide coalition of mortgage investors and servicers.
> 
> The number of mortgages that were 60 days or more late reached 5.65% in May, which makes for the highest level on record and up from 5.48% in April, according to the Hope Now Alliance, the private-sector alliance of mortgage servicers and investors. Foreclosure starts surged after pausing earlier this year as various states and lenders held back foreclosures through various moratoria. Some 257,000 homes entered the foreclosure process, up 5.7% from April and 34% from one year ago.
> 
> The May figures show how the housing market distress has eased for subprime borrowers while it continues to accelerate for prime borrowers. Subprime foreclosure starts fell by 16% from one year ago, even as prime foreclosure starts jumped by 83%. Housing analyst Ivy Zelman notes that an “incremental weakening in prime mortgages are likely to result in a pick-up in higher-priced foreclosures hitting the market in late 2009/early 2010.” That could put more downward pressure on the higher end of the housing market.



Spreading Problem: More Prime Borrowers Delinquent on Mortgages - Developments - WSJ


----------



## Tilted

According to John Burns Real Estate Consulting, the rental gap has now turned negative (nationwide average), and is very much negative in some real estate markets. In other words, it is now more affordable to own than to rent. The rental gap had averaged around +$400 since 2001.

Other metrics that I've seen have suggested that mortgage payments, relative to rent, have gotten back to more historically normal levels - as opposed to the very high levels that were seen around 2004 - 2006.

In short, the affordability of homes in America is about back to where it should be - to a tenable level. Obviously though, there is still a great deal of variation, in that regard, between different markets.


----------



## Larry Gude

Tilted said:


> According to John Burns Real Estate Consulting, the rental gap has now turned negative (nationwide average), and is very much negative in some real estate markets. In other words, it is now more affordable to own than to rent. The rental gap had averaged around +$400 since 2001.
> 
> Other metrics that I've seen have suggested that mortgage payments, relative to rent, have gotten back to more historically normal levels - as opposed to the very high levels that were seen around 2004 - 2006.
> 
> In short, the affordability of homes in America is about back to where it should be - to a tenable level. Obviously though, there is still a great deal of variation, in that regard, between different markets.



In addition to that, I just read a piece somewhere that did a survey suggesting that the majority of renters still do not own their home. Margin of error was, if I recall, about 0%.


----------



## Beta84

Larry Gude said:


> In addition to that, I just read a piece somewhere that did a survey suggesting that the majority of renters still do not own their home. Margin of error was, if I recall, about 0%.



What are you talking about?  I own the place I am currently renting!  

I'm just going to be a nice guy and donate it back to them when I don't need it anymore


----------



## Larry Gude

Beta84 said:


> What are you talking about?  I own the place I am currently renting!
> 
> I'm just going to be a nice guy and donate it back to them when I don't need it anymore



My bad; margin of error 3%+/-


----------



## Tilted

Larry Gude said:


> In addition to that, I just read a piece somewhere that did a survey suggesting that the majority of renters still do not own their home. Margin of error was, if I recall, about 0%.


 
You can't trust surveys.  I'd prefer to see a few extensive, unbiased studies on the matter before I express agreement with the notion.


----------



## TurboK9

vraiblonde said:


> Prices are low and you're STUPID if you don't buy now.  Why the hell would you wait until the market picks up and homes cost more?
> 
> You wouldn't.  Unless you're stupid.
> 
> There's a 5 BR, 3 BA right up the street from me that is a creampuff - great condition, hardwood floors, brick fireplace, family room, nice lot, fabulous neighborhood (if I do say so myself) for only $299,900.  Mortgage payment of $1600 a month.
> 
> There's another one in Excuse the Eff Out of Me Society Hill in Ltown for $229,900, 3 BR, 2BA - $1200 a mo.
> 
> A big fat ol' house, 4 and 3, in Great Mills, for $1350 a mo.
> 
> And you'll OWN it!
> 
> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.
> 
> Buy low.  Sell high.  Duh.
> 
> Prices are low so NOW is the time to buy.
> 
> If you have decent credit and can actually afford to buy a home, NOW IS THE TIME!
> 
> Don't be stupid and let this buyer's market opportunity pass you by.
> 
> So STOP that renting!!!  Renting is for losers!  The American dream is to OWN a home, not friggin rent one.
> 
> And NOW is the time.



So you were chugging away away Florida, about 2 years ago, had $30 K in the bank, married cuple bringing down well over 6 figures together, when WHAM suddenly you are both laid off.  No warning.  4 months you both search for work, taking home $550 a week in unemployment between the two of you.  Savings are slowly drying up.  Wow a job offer in MN that is offering the larger income partner a little more than they were making in FL.  Pack everything up, spend 3K more in savings for the move, find a place to move the family into... Savings are a little over half gone...  work for 2 months and the new employer crashes too.  Damned economy!  4 more months go by, savings are gone now, all sorts of sacrifices being made to pay bills that were established on a six figure combined income, now it's the equivalent of $20K.

Hey is that the repo guy?  Ooops there goes the new truck you bought before the first layoff...  

Month later you find work again.  Whooopy!  3 months later bloop 'nuther layoff.  WTF.

Ready to just say F it and resign yourself to living on gas station wages, a job offer in MD.  Beg, borrow, everything but steal to get out there.  Wow.  That was close... almost a year, and no layoff... for you, but half the company was.  You know you are lucky to be pulling 2/3 time and salary.  So you are thankful just for the job.

Oh nope, it all just happened because you're stupid!  I had forgotten!  Must have bad credit because you made an idiotic decision on a home purchase!  Yeah, that's it!!!

Ya know what?  Me and a few million other Americans would like to say 

I'm just saying!  Not all of us in this position are here because of bad decisions.  Hell I was renting when the s**t hit the fan, too!


----------



## jetmonkey

TurboK9 said:


> So you were chugging away away Florida, about 2 years ago, had $30 K in the bank, married cuple bringing down well over 6 figures together, when WHAM suddenly you are both laid off.  No warning.  4 months you both search for work, taking home $550 a week in unemployment between the two of you.  Savings are slowly drying up.  Wow a job offer in MN that is offering the larger income partner a little more than they were making in FL.  Pack everything up, spend 3K more in savings for the move, find a place to move the family into... Savings are a little over half gone...  work for 2 months and the new employer crashes too.  Damned economy!  4 more months go by, savings are gone now, all sorts of sacrifices being made to pay bills that were established on a six figure combined income, now it's the equivalent of $20K.
> 
> Hey is that the repo guy?  Ooops there goes the new truck you bought before the first layoff...
> 
> Month later you find work again.  Whooopy!  3 months later bloop 'nuther layoff.  WTF.
> 
> Ready to just say F it and resign yourself to living on gas station wages, a job offer in MD.  Beg, borrow, everything but steal to get out there.  Wow.  That was close... almost a year, and no layoff... for you, but half the company was.  You know you are lucky to be pulling 2/3 time and salary.  So you are thankful just for the job.
> 
> Oh nope, it all just happened because you're stupid!  I had forgotten!  Must have bad credit because you made an idiotic decision on a home purchase!  Yeah, that's it!!!
> 
> Ya know what?  Me and a few million other Americans would like to say
> 
> I'm just saying!  Not all of us in this position are here because of bad decisions.  Hell I was renting when the s**t hit the fan, too!



Whut industry are you in


----------



## TurboK9

jetmonkey said:


> Whut industry are you in



Better question now would be which one am I not in, haha!

Seriously though... CAD drafting and design, 3d (solidworks, Catia, Inventor, etc).  Down in FL I was working w/ the screen room and pool enclosure companies doing design work for several.  When the housing market tanked there, so did many of those companies.  Eventually found a position w/ Boston Scientific in MN, that went well for a couple months, tempt to hire, but just before I was to be hired on BSCI instituted a hiring freeze.  Ooopsy, they couldn't even renew contracts.  Then a contract position with GEA Niro designing industrial food proceess equipment including ethanol process components.  That tanked.

Moved to MD and to design and prototyping for refridgerated commercial equipment, salad bars, dairy and deli cases, that sort of thing.  Wound up taking over IT too for them, that's the only reason I get enough time in to make it worth while.  Company has been struggling since November.

Ironic thing is within weeks of moving here BSCI released the freeze and offered me a permanent position, but I was completely tapped from the last move.  Hehe!  Eh.  

It's been a hell of a couple years, but we're comfy w/ a roof, food, transportation, so you be thankful for it and drive on .


----------



## somdrenter

*1.5 million homes in foreclosure in '09*



> Homeowners fell behind on mortgage payments in record numbers during the first six months of 2009. The future doesn't look much better.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The foreclosure plague is not going away -- it's only getting worse.
> 
> A record 1.53 million properties were in the foreclosure process -- default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions -- during the first six months of 2009. That was 9% more than the previous six months and 15% more than the same period of 2008, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac.
> 
> There were a total of 1.91 million filings resulting in 1 out of every 84 U.S. properties receiving at least one filing in the first half of the year. Banks repossessed 386,800 properties


First half foreclosures break records - Jul. 16, 2009


----------



## jetmonkey

So what happens to the US financial system and life as we know it now that people have realized there is no penalty for walking away from their debt?


----------



## somdrenter

jetmonkey said:


> So what happens to the US financial system and life as we know it now that people have realized there is no penalty for walking away from their debt?





Gemmi said:


> Here's my situation. My ex and I have a home in both our names. When we separated last year we agreed that he could keep the house. He was supposed to refinance and have it in his name only. Obviously, he didn't do it. Bacause of his addictions, he no longer has a job and as a result can't make the mortgage payments. So I am going to get my credit all shot to hell because of him.






Ray said:


> I am going thru this too (foreclosure possibly) and I have researched a lot of this.  I have been trying to short sell my home since the end of May after being turned down for a loan modification because Wells "investors did not feel it was in their best interest".  (Wells Fargo received $25 billion in TARP money!).
> 
> Unfortunately, I have about 2 1/2 weeks left to accomplish this or I will be foreclosed on.  All advice given so far is good.  Just remember to not go down without a fight.





yankee44 said:


> Here is another question.
> 
> I have some friends that might end up getting their house foreclosed. The house is solely in his name. would it effect his wife's credit and would she be able to buy a smaller cheeper house solely in her name once they are out from under the other one?


:shrug:


----------



## Crewdawg141

somdrenter said:


> :shrug:



After looking at the majority of this entire thread, the better question is can a person practice Living WITH-IN Their Means?  To own a home or property is a good thing if you can afford all of the expenses that are involved in ownership.  If your paychecks are not enough to fully afford the lifestyle that you are comfortable with and a mortgage along with all of the bills a home brings then No  - DO NOT BUY.  

Do not be pressured by any family, friends, or the Realtor commercials that say NOW, Is The Time To Buy.  If you can not financially swing it do not risk it.  I work as a Realtor and I enjoy the business, but I am not afraid to tell a client - NO, Now is not your time.  The lenders are making things harder for everyone, good credit and bad credit alike.  Save as much as you can to afford the 10-20% down payment, drive your old car for a little longer than planned, don't go on lavish vacations and save another 5-10% beyond the down payment for any new emergency bill like the furnace dying on a cold winter day.


----------



## smilin

Crewdawg141 said:


> After looking at the majority of this entire thread, the better question is can a person practice Living WITH-IN Their Means?  To own a home or property is a good thing if you can afford all of the expenses that are involved in ownership.  If your paychecks are not enough to fully afford the lifestyle that you are comfortable with and a mortgage along with all of the bills a home brings then No  - DO NOT BUY.
> 
> Do not be pressured by any family, friends, or the Realtor commercials that say NOW, Is The Time To Buy.  If you can not financially swing it do not risk it.  I work as a Realtor and I enjoy the business, but I am not afraid to tell a client - NO, Now is not your time.  The lenders are making things harder for everyone, good credit and bad credit alike.  Save as much as you can to afford the 10-20% down payment, drive your old car for a little longer than planned, don't go on lavish vacations and save another 5-10% beyond the down payment for any new emergency bill like the furnace dying on a cold winter day.


Thank you


----------



## somdrenter

*Half of mortgage borrowers will be 'underwater'*



> An estimated 25 million borrowers will owe more than their house is worth by 2011.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Nearly half the nation's mortgage borrowers will soon owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, according to a new report.
> 
> A Deutsche Bank analysis of the battered housing and mortgage markets estimated that 25 million borrowers, representing 48% of all Americans with mortgage loans, will plunge underwater before home prices are expected to stabilize in the beginning of 2011.
> 
> "If our home-price forecast is correct, roughly one in two mortgage borrowers and one in three homeowners will owe more than their home is worth," said Karen Weaver, one of the researchers who authored the report. "That's a dramatic shift from the past several decades when housing was the foundation of middle class wealth."


Underwater world - Aug. 6, 2009


----------



## jetmonkey

So what. Just stop paying your mortgage :shrug:


----------



## somdrenter

jetmonkey said:


> So what. Just stop paying your mortgage :shrug:


I’m not advocating it, but some would say……


> People say, "I bought my house for $500,000, it's worth $250,000, there are 10 available for sale in my neighborhood. It makes no economic sense to spend the rest of my life trying to pay off a $500,000 debt when there's no reasonable likelihood to expect this house to go back up to $500,000."
> 
> This might sound extreme, but we have borrowers who bought a $500,000 home in California at the peak of the market on $50,000 of income. So for them to devote their gross income for the next 10 years solely to paying off [their] mortgage doesn't make any sense.


Interview with Deutsche Bank about 'underwater' mortgages - Aug. 12, 2009

All in all, a pretty good article. A few years too late (not that it would have helped).


----------



## Beta84

Nucklesack said:


> What part of your scenario has anything to do with the Current housing market?  The scenario you describe can happen to anyone living outside of their means.  That is the real story of the Housing Market.
> 
> How many people bought into homes they couldnt afford and threw caution to the wind just to keep with the Joneses?



Reading comprehension is your friend.

The story was about someone who was living within their means who lost their job and ran out of money.  The housing market started with some people living outside of their means (the subprime mortgages, basically), but the stuff that's been happening more recently is primarily due to the job market taking a turn for the worst, which has put people out of jobs that had been living within their means.

Everyone thinking about buying a home is skeptical right now because they can't be 100% confident (in most cases) that they'll have a job a month or two.  Do you buy a home, lose your job, and get foreclosed once the savings dry up?  Or do you continue renting, making it easy to downsize should something bad happen?  The way things are going, it's tough to say that buying a home is the right decision.  Just ask a bunch of the people who were foreclosed on recently.


----------



## somdrenter

*Home foreclosures set another record in July*



> NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. home loans failed at a record pace in July despite ongoing federal and state programs to avoid foreclosures, which have severely strained housing and the economy.
> 
> Foreclosure activity jumped 7 percent in July from June and 32 percent from a year earlier as one in every 355 households with a loan got a foreclosure filing, RealtyTrac said on Thursday.
> 
> Filings -- including notices of default, auction and bank repossession -- have escalated with unemployment.


Home foreclosures set another record in July | Special Coverage | Reuters


----------



## TurboK9

Nucklesack said:


> What part of your scenario has anything to do with the Current housing market?  The scenario you describe can happen to anyone living outside of their means.  That is the real story of the Housing Market.
> 
> How many people bought into homes they couldnt afford and threw caution to the wind just to keep with the Joneses?



The point was that you didn't have to be living beyond your means to get into trouble, and just because you got into trouble did not mean you were 'competing with the Joneses'.  Some people simply got f'ed by job losses in the current economic climate.

What does it have to do with the housing market?

Actually, everything.  First the market began to crash down in FL when the market topped out for the investors and they began to run out of buyers.  Sales dried up and thousands of brand new homes were sitting un sold and developers started to close their doors, costing thousands of construction workers their jobs.

People who bought at the early stages of the bubble on sub prime loans began to find out exactly what adjustable rate means, and suddenly their credit was trashed.  Banks started to loose money, peoples credit became damaged, this means less consumers as we are a credit based economy...  

The entire economic debacle we are now facing is the result of extending too much credit too fast and too freely.  Houses are mostly purchased on credit.  Nobody buys, nobody builds, many loose jobs,  less consumers, it chain reacts and ripples across our checkbooks and those of our employers.  

It all ties together.


----------



## somdrenter

> Bank of America:
> 
> • *Foreclosure sales have been abnormally low *since we learned of the pending implementation of the administration’s Making Home Affordable program. From that point, we *delayed the initiation of foreclosure proceedings and sales *for customers that may eligible for a loan modification under MHA. As a result of this policy, our foreclosure sales in recent months have been as little as half the normal pace we experienced before.
> 
> • Until a foreclosure is completed, Bank of America continues to exhaust every possible option to qualify customers for modification or other solutions.
> 
> • Now that Making Home Affordable programs are operational, *we do project an increase in foreclosures* as we exhaust every available option to qualify customers for modifications and other solutions.
> 
> • While we have very strong loan modification programs now available, unfortunately, *these foreclosure projections reflect the increasing number of customers who will not qualify for loan modification *because they have suffered major life events servicers can’t solve...primarily unemployment and underemployment.
> 
> • We do not hold foreclosed properties off the market. The vast majority of mortgages serviced by Bank of America are owned by third-party investors. We have an obligation to them to prepare foreclosed properties for market and sell them as efficiently as possible.


What Banks Are Really Doing With Foreclosures - Realty Check with Diana Olick - CNBC.com


----------



## smilin

Believe a bank? Sure why not, Santa's right around the corner too.
Wonder of anyone has done a study on whether or not people who have stopped paying their loans are able to stay in their homes longer now than historicaly.
It IS cheaper to let people stay in their homes than letting it sit abandoned until the loan holder gets around to fixing it and putting it on the market.


----------



## Chasey_Lane

smilin said:


> Wonder of anyone has done a study on whether or not people who have stopped paying their loans are able to stay in their homes longer now than historicaly.



I know someone who has been in foreclosure since January.  They are still in their home.  Know someone else who has been in foreclosure since the summer of last year.  Still in the house.


----------



## smilin

Chasey_Lane said:


> I know someone who has been in foreclosure since January.  They are still in their home.  Know someone else who has been in foreclosure since the summer of last year.  Still in the house.



I have never seen as many people in homes slated for foreclosure. I'm not talking of short sales, but who outright haven't made a payment for months.
I personaly believe the banks have such a backlog that someone came up with the idea to let the owners stay until the banks could turn them over quickly.
As a side benefit, having someone living there will at the very least keep the house in better shape than sitting vacant.


----------



## somdrenter

BoyGenius said:


> 46361 Block of Columbus Drive, Lexington Park, year built 1991.
> 
> Initial Sales Price: 05/13/1991, Price: $84,930
> 
> High Price Point: 03/08/2006, Price: $180,000
> 
> Low Price Point: 12/28/2001, Price: $56,000
> 
> Current Foreclosure *Asking* Price: $97,900
> 
> - Property Finder



Sold: $69K.

SM7026646 on FranklyMLS.com 46361 COLUMBUS DR #104, LEXINGTON PARK MD for $84,900 in COLUMBIA COMMONS Home For Sale


----------



## sockgirl77

somdrenter said:


> Sold: $69K.
> 
> SM7026646 on FranklyMLS.com 46361 COLUMBUS DR #104, LEXINGTON PARK MD for $84,900 in COLUMBIA COMMONS Home For Sale



Ghetto.


----------



## sunflower

sockgirl77 said:


> Ghetto.


 

 And I'd rather rent then buy that place...


----------



## somdrenter

sockgirl77 said:


> Ghetto.


Maybe. But folks were paying up to $180K for these units in 06. Here's the kicker, one was sold for $145K back in February.


----------



## sockgirl77

somdrenter said:


> Maybe. But folks were paying up to $180K for these units in 06. Here's the kicker, one was sold for $145K back in February.


And now they're not selling because people realize how crappy the neighborhood has gotten. I lived there years ago. Moved out in 1998 because it was getting bad.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Maybe. But folks were paying up to $180K for these units in 06. Here's the kicker, one was sold for $145K back in February.


No, it was for sale for $180K and did not sell.


----------



## Pandora

somdrenter said:


> Sold: $69K.
> 
> SM7026646 on FranklyMLS.com 46361 COLUMBUS DR #104, LEXINGTON PARK MD for $84,900 in COLUMBIA COMMONS Home For Sale



Hey, I personally think that was a great deal! 

I have been in that house... They rented it for some time and the carpets, walls, everything needs to be redone. But even still, 73K comes out to be around about $500 a month in payment with property tax, provided they have a half way decent credit rating in today's economy.  Where else can a person live for $500 a month?  

But, they are due for another shooting/murder over there, aren't they?  They have at least 1 per year there it seems.


----------



## vraiblonde

Houses should be free.


----------



## BuddyLee

sockgirl77 said:


> Ghetto.


I'd live in worse and pay more.

I wish I had known about this earlier.


----------



## BuddyLee

Where can you get a list of foreclosures?

Are there any negatives in buying a foreclosed home?


----------



## morningbell

BuddyLee said:


> Where can you get a list of foreclosures?
> 
> Are there any negatives in buying a foreclosed home?



Go to any real estate agent and ask for one, you'll get weekly emails about them.  There are negatives to buying a foreclosed home and there are positives it depends on where you're at in your life.  Do you need to move in right away?  How much work are you willing to do to it?  Is it going to pass inspection?  

The thing about this particular neighborhood is that it's sandwiched between two of the crappiest hoods in the LP, there is always litter on the streets, and then most of it is section 8.  I have never been inside any of these homes but they look nice just walking by them.


----------



## morningbell

somdrenter said:


> Maybe. But folks were paying up to $180K for these units in 06. Here's the kicker, one was sold for $145K back in February.



And I'm sure those people weren't living in them for the most part.  Just looking for an investment.  Realized they can't get $$$$ for them so they end up renting to section 8....


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> No, it was for sale for $180K and did not sell.


03/08/06-End unit, Sold-$180K


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Houses should be free.


Should be? Hell, given all the loan re-works, bailouts,  NODs and the backlog of foreclosures, some folks _are _getting them for free.


----------



## BuddyLee

morningbell said:


> Go to any real estate agent and ask for one, you'll get weekly emails about them. There are negatives to buying a foreclosed home and there are positives it depends on where you're at in your life. Do you need to move in right away? How much work are you willing to do to it? Is it going to pass inspection?
> 
> The thing about this particular neighborhood is that it's sandwiched between two of the crappiest hoods in the LP, there is always litter on the streets, and then most of it is section 8. I have never been inside any of these homes but they look nice just walking by them.


Thank ya'.  A thank ya' very much.

:elvislipquiver:


----------



## somdrenter

*Foreclosures: 'Worst three months of all time'*



> Despite signs of broader economic recovery, number of foreclosure filings hit a record high in the third quarter - a sign the plague is still spreading
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite concerted government-led and lender-supported efforts to prevent foreclosures, the number of filings hit a record high in the third quarter, according to a report issued Thursday.
> 
> "They were the worst three months of all time," said Rick Sharga, spokesman for RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed homes.
> 
> During that time, 937,840 homes received a foreclosure letter -- whether a default notice, auction notice or bank repossession, the RealtyTrac report said. That means one in every 136 U.S. homes were in foreclosure, which is a 5% increase from the second quarter and a 23% jump over the third quarter of 2008



Foreclosures hit record in third quarter 2009 - Oct. 15, 2009


----------



## somdrenter

*Homes: About to get much cheaper*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If you thought home prices were bottoming out, you may be wrong. They're expected to head a lot lower.
> 
> Home values are predicted to drop in 342 out of 381 markets during the next year, according to a new forecast of real estate prices.
> 
> Overall, the national median home price is predicted to drop 11.3% by June 30, 2010, according to Fiserv, a financial information and analysis firm. For the following year, the firm anticipates some stabilization with prices rising 3.6%.
> 
> In the past, Fiserv anticipated the rapid decline in home-sale prices over the past few years -- though it underestimated the scope.
> 
> Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Economy.com, agreed with Fiserv's current assessments. "I think more price declines are coming because the foreclosure crisis is not over," he said.


Homes: About to get much cheaper - Oct. 20, 2009


----------



## CrashTest

Yea - I saw this earlier and I've been seeing a lot of similar stuff in recent weeks.  Tax credit running out doesn't help.


----------



## somdrenter

CrashTest said:


> Yea - I saw this earlier and I've been seeing a lot of similar stuff in recent weeks.  Tax credit running out doesn't help.


Pretty remarkable how little we've learned.

Propping up prices with toxic mortgages, liar loans, loose credit and now $8k in seller(*) subsidies really didn't work out too well.



*That's right, seller subsidy. Every seller knows that every potential buyer has $8k burning a hole in their pocket. That's $8k that the seller doesn't have to reduce in price, and a weakening of a potential buyers down payment buying power.


----------



## Pandora

somdrenter said:


> Homes: About to get much cheaper - Oct. 20, 2009



You know... We bought our house in 2004 after selling our house in Waldorf.

That Waldorf home sold for 300K (June 2004), paid 164K for it in 1997.  It sold 1 more time after we moved (May 2006).  Apparently the jerk we sold the house to couldn't get along with the neighbors   And it was sold for $409K.  The 'new' people told an old neighbor of ours that according to a market analysis that old house of ours is only worth $262K now, so they have decided that they have to stay put.

Could that be possible to have a house loose $147K from 2006 to now?


----------



## somdrenter

Pandora said:


> You know... We bought our house in 2004 after selling our house in Waldorf.
> 
> That Waldorf home sold for 300K (June 2004), paid 164K for it in 1997.  It sold 1 more time after we moved (May 2006).  Apparently the jerk we sold the house to couldn't get along with the neighbors   And it was sold for $409K.  The 'new' people told an old neighbor of ours that according to a market analysis that old house of ours is only worth $262K now, so they have decided that they have to stay put.
> 
> Could that be possible to have a house loose $147K from 2006 to now?


Yep.
http://www.mris.com/reports/stats/
FranklyMLS.com Virginia & DC MLS via Keyword Search & Wiki. Homes for Sale


----------



## somdrenter

*Mortgage payments: Record number are late*



> Efforts to combat foreclosure plague are falling short as the total number of delinquent mortgage loans hits 9.64%.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Mortgage borrowers are still falling behind on their payments in record numbers, despite the many foreclosure prevention efforts initiated by the government and nonprofts.
> In the third quarter, 9.64% of all mortgage loans were delinquent, according to a report released Thursday by Mortgage Bankers Association. That represents 4.5 million borrowers and is an increase from 9.24% in the prior three months.
> "Despite the recession ending in mid-summer, the decline in mortgage performance continues," said Jay Brinkmann, MBA's chief economist. "Job losses continue to increase and drive up delinquencies and foreclosures because mortgages are paid with paychecks, not percentage point increases in GDP."


Record number of mortgage loans are delinquent - Nov. 19, 2009


----------



## Vince

> "Despite the recession ending in mid-summer, the decline in mortgage performance continues," said Jay Brinkmann,


I didn't know that.  Glad someone told me because I sure couldn't tell by the price of everything.


----------



## somdrenter

*1 in 4 mortgages 'underwater'*



> Report shows 10.7 million borrowers are stuck with homes that are worth less than the mortgages they owe.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In a sign that more foreclosures could be on the horizon, 23% of people with mortgages owe more than their home is worth, according to a report released Tuesday.
> 
> Almost 10.7 million U.S. mortgages were "underwater" as of September, said research firm First American CoreLogic.
> 
> Another 2.3 million homeowners are within 5% of negative territory, the report said. The two figures combined comprise almost 28% of all residential properties with mortgages.
> 
> Negative equity, also called an "underwater" or "upside down" mortgage, has become more common as home values plummet. The report is closely watched because borrowers who are underwater are more likely to be foreclosed.


Underwater mortgages: 1 in 4 in negative equity - Nov. 24, 2009


----------



## somdrenter

> Record 3 million households hit with foreclosure in 2009
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Almost 3 million homeowners received at least one foreclosure filing during 2009, setting a new record for the number of people falling behind on their mortgage payments.
> 
> RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosed homes, reported that one in 45 households -- or 2,824,674 properties nationwide -- were in default last year. That's 21% more than in 2008, and more than double 2007's total.


Foreclosures hit record high in 2009 - Jan. 14, 2010


----------



## somdrenter

*Harder to get an Uncle Sam mortgage*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's going to be harder to get a government-backed mortgage from now on.
> Looking to shore up its weakening finances, the Federal Housing Administration is set to announce stricter standards on Wednesday
> 
> The agency, which insured nearly a third of new mortgages in 2009, will increase the premium it charges for its mortgage insurance and require those with weaker credit scores to come up with larger downpayments.
> The FHA will also reduce the amount of money a seller can provide a homebuyer for closing costs, as well as tighten its enforcement of lenders.
> 
> …..The agency will increase its up-front mortgage insurance premium to 2.25%, from 1.75%. It will also ask Congress for the right to hike its ongoing premium, currently as much as .55% monthly. Once it gets permission, the agency will shift some of the up-front premium to the ongoing charge, which will have less of an impact on borrowers…..


FHA loan requirements will make it harder to get mortgage - Jan. 19, 2010


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

smoothmarine187 said:


> I have tons of money saved up, but I prefer to throw it all away by renting



Actually, I do rent. I rent because I am constantly being sent to different locations due to job. While I might not own the house in the end, I am fine with paying for the home I currently reside in.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> FHA loan requirements will make it harder to get mortgage - Jan. 19, 2010


Awwww......  

I just did a refi and got 3.75% interest to buy a nice toy for the summer.  AND I get the tax write off. AND it'll be paid off in 5 years.  Too bad you *renters* can't do that huh?


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Too bad you *renters* can't do that huh?


Can't? We _can _do it right now (at ~2005 prices).


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> Can't? We _can _do it right now (at ~2005 prices).



By reading the posts in here, I think it is none of their business if you rent or buy, that is your personal choice.  I think that it is also strange that they seem to think they are a better person, simply because they brought a house as opposed to you renting. Without knowing everyone's reasoning (and quite frankly again it should be none of their concern) as to why certain people choose to buy and certain people choose not to buy. 

I think it is a waste of time trying to reason with people who call others names, or feel they can judge people they do not even know solely based on home ownership and more to the point, who cares what they think? It is your life and your choice.


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> It is your life and your choice.


I tend to agree and that used to be the case. These bailouts prove differently.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> I tend to agree and that used to be the case. These bailouts prove differently.



True


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Can't? We _can _do it right now (at ~2005 prices).


No you can't!!!  You have no home with equity!  All you have is the payment of your landlords mortgage.


----------



## somdrenter

Equity? Is that what this is about? Heck, if I purchased in 2005, there's a good chance I'd have no equity.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> Equity? Is that what this is about? Heck, if I purchased in 2005, there's a good chance I'd have no equity.



Pffft why argue anymore about it? Who cares what anyone else thinks about what you do with your life? 

You have nothing to prove to anyone on here.


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Pffft why argue anymore about it? Who cares what anyone else thinks about what you do with your life?
> 
> You have nothing to prove to anyone on here.


I agree. At this point, this thread only serves as historical documentation. I believe this is/was the first economic disaster that the Joe on the street had enough information at his fingertips to see it coming. But, history repeats itself and all, and this thread could serve as a link someday.


----------



## aps45819

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> By reading the posts in here, I think it is none of their business if you rent or buy, that is your personal choice.  I think that it is also strange that they seem to think they are a better person, simply because they brought a house as opposed to you renting.



you must be a renter


----------



## morningbell

aps45819 said:


> you must be a renter



my son laughed today as we passed an old guy on a cycle.....  he said, "HA!  Look , an old man on a motorcycle".  Where you out riding today?


----------



## somdrenter

*450,000 at risk in foreclosure-prevention program*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Hundreds of thousands of troubled homeowners who are making lower mortgage payments on a trial basis are at risk of being kicked out of President Obama's foreclosure-prevention program.
> 
> Companies that service the mortgages have until Jan. 31 to review all trial modifications that have been underway for several months under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), according to a Treasury Department guideline issued late last month. The Treasury Dept. said it would issue new guidelines next week, but wouldn't give any details.


Get your documents in, if you are in trial loan modification - Jan. 23, 2010


----------



## aps45819

morningbell said:


> my son laughed today as we passed an old guy on a cycle.....  he said, "HA!  Look , an old man on a motorcycle".  Where you out riding today?



Wasn't me, I jammed a knife in my hand on Friday so it's uncomfortable the hold on.
Must have been GWguy, he looks really old


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

aps45819 said:


> you must be a renter



Actually, I was a home owner till the travel increased in my job to where I was hardly ever home. So yes, now I find it much easier to rent. So what? Why do you care?


----------



## kom526

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Actually, I was a home owner till the travel increased in my job to where I was hardly ever home. So yes, now I find it much easier to rent. So what? Why do you care?



He's jerking your chain.



While some people extol the virtues of renting, nothing can beat the feeling of owning your own home (IMHO). For every post about "the millions" of people facing foreclosure and being upside down, there are probably twice as many who did things right.


----------



## GWguy

aps45819 said:


> Wasn't me, I jammed a knife in my hand on Friday so it's uncomfortable the hold on.
> Must have been GWguy, he looks really old



  I resemble that.....



kom526 said:


> He's jerking your chain.
> 
> 
> 
> While some people extol the virtues of renting, nothing can beat the feeling of owning your own home (IMHO). For every post about "the millions" of people facing foreclosure and being upside down, there are probably twice as many who did things right.



As one of those who "did it right", I can say that I am within months of completing my mortgage.  After that, it's 100% equity.


----------



## kom526

GWguy said:


> As one of those who "did it right", I can say that I am within months of completing my mortgage.  After that, it's 100% equity.




I'm not within months (20 some odd years and counting) BUT there's plenty of equity.


----------



## GWguy

kom526 said:


> I'm not within months (20 some odd years and counting) BUT there's plenty of equity.



  It's a great feeling to be at this point.


----------



## aps45819

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Why do you care?





kom526 said:


> He's jerking your chain.



and she's dancing with every jerk


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

kom526 said:


> He's jerking your chain.
> 
> 
> 
> While some people extol the virtues of renting, nothing can beat the feeling of owning your own home (IMHO). For every post about "the millions" of people facing foreclosure and being upside down, there are probably twice as many who did things right.



LOL I know...I just jerked back... and he liked it.



GWguy said:


> I resemble that.....
> 
> 
> 
> As one of those who "did it right", I can say that I am within months of completing my mortgage.  After that, it's 100% equity.



 congrats!!



aps45819 said:


> and she's dancing with every jerk



 is that what you call it?


----------



## Chasey_Lane

GWguy said:


> As one of those who "did it right", I can say that I am within months of completing my mortgage.  After that, it's 100% equity.



Niiiiice!!  Congrats!!


----------



## Two-er

GWguy said:


> I resemble that.....
> 
> 
> 
> As one of those who "did it right", I can say that I am within months of completing my mortgage.  After that, it's 100% equity.



Yea - but it's dead equity earning in Maryland about 1.25% annual rate of return based on historical data.


----------



## PrepH4U

Two-er said:


> Yea - but it's dead equity earning in Maryland about 1.25% annual rate of return based on historical data.



I suppose you can say that you do not have to pay a mortgage or pay rent to anyone? :shrug: Wouldn't you like to have that extra money a month instead of paying someone else? :shrug:


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Yea - but it's dead equity earning in Maryland about 1.25% annual rate of return based on historical data.


----------



## Baja28

PrepH4U said:


> I suppose you can say that you do not have to pay a mortgage or pay rent to anyone? :shrug: Wouldn't you like to have that extra money a month instead of paying someone else? :shrug:


Doncha love how these renters who have nothing always try to find a jab.... 

May they live long and pay rent even longer!


----------



## BuddyLee

Baja28 said:


> Doncha love how these renters who have nothing always try to find a jab....
> 
> May they live long and pay rent even longer!


I'd much rather own than rent, which is why I'll be looking for a house before an apartment if I can help it.


----------



## Two-er

PrepH4U said:


> I suppose you can say that you do not have to pay a mortgage or pay rent to anyone? :shrug: Wouldn't you like to have that extra money a month instead of paying someone else? :shrug:



Just saying that a $500,000 house sitting there earning 1.25% annual return is lame compared to $500,000 invested wisely earning 10-12%.  Even a modest 10% return on that $500,000 would earn you $50,000 a year.  In other words, more than enough to pay for your housing along with housing for a few of your kids.

Like I said, a house that's paid off and just sitting there, is dead equity.


----------



## Baja28

BuddyLee said:


> I'd much rather own than rent, which is why I'll be looking for a house before an apartment if I can help it.


You're a fart smella....er...a... I mean you're a smart fella BuddyLee!! And if you keep that house, one day it'll be paid for and all yours.  Then you won't have any payments and can use the equity to enjoy yourself.


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Just saying that a $500,000 house sitting there earning 1.25% annual return is lame compared to $500,000 invested wisely earning 10-12%.  Even a modest 10% return on that $500,000 would earn you $50,000 a year.  In other words, more than enough to pay for your housing along with housing for a few of your kids.
> 
> Like I said, a house that's paid off and just sitting there, is dead equity.


So where did you get this $500K to just drop in this AWESOME 10% interest bearing account genius? 

And if you think $50K a year pays for your and a few of your kids housing, I now know what I'm dealing with.  :moron:


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> So where did you get this $500K to just drop in this AWESOME 10% interest bearing account genius?
> 
> And if you think $50K a year pays for your and a few of your kids housing, I now know what I'm dealing with.  :moron:



I'll talk slower    Sell the $500,000 house, invest the lump sum, and pay 2 mortgages with the interest you earn without ever touching the $500,000 principal


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Sell the $500,000 house, invest the lump sum, and pay 2 mortgages with the interest you earn without ever touching the $500,000 principal


Ok Einstein, lets back up here.  

1. How did you get a  paid off house worth $500K?  
2. What kind of mortgages do you think you're going to get with $50K/year?  Remember, you said "several" earlier. Even if it were 2, you're living in a blue collar apt. at best. 

 You're not very good at this.


----------



## PrepH4U

Two-er said:


> I'll talk slower    Sell the $500,000 house, invest the lump sum, and pay 2 mortgages with the interest you earn without ever touching the $500,000 principal



hmmm why should I sell my house (tax deduction) when I already have renters paying for my 2nd house?


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> I'll talk slower    Sell the $500,000 house, invest the lump sum, and pay 2 mortgages with the interest you earn without ever touching the $500,000 principal


While you're talking slow (which I don't doubt for a second you do), try reading post 419.


----------



## somdrenter

> Existing home sales sink 16.7%
> By Julianne Pepitone, staff reporterJanuary 25, 2010: 11:11 AM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Existing home sales fell in December, the month after a federal tax credit was slated to expire, according to a real estate industry report issued Monday.


Existing home sales sink on slated tax credit expiration - Jan. 25, 2010


----------



## somdrenter

*Want it to sell?*

Drop the price....



> Home sales rose in '09 as prices plunged 12 pct.
> 
> Home sales rose in '09 for first time in 4 years, boosted by government spending, low prices
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sales of previously occupied homes rose in 2009 for the first time in four years, despite a December slump that was due to a tax credit that led many buyers to complete sales earlier.
> 
> Still, prices plunged more than 12 percent last year -- *the sharpest fall since the Great Depression*. The price drop for 2009 -- to a median of $173,500 -- showed the housing market remains too weak to help fuel a sustained economic recovery.


Home sales rose in '09 as prices plunged 12 pct. - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Existing home sales sink on slated tax credit expiration - Jan. 25, 2010





somdrenter said:


> Drop the price....
> 
> 
> Home sales rose in '09 as prices plunged 12 pct. - Yahoo! Finance


Sux if you're selling.  Those of us who aren't and paid off their mortgages are now either socking away the cash or using the equity to have fun.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Then you won't have any payments and can use the equity to enjoy yourself.


What the previous poster is pointing out(maybe) is opportunity cost. While despite what you may fabricate Baja, no one has advocated renting indefinitely.  Historically, housing has just kept up with inflation.  You may have noticed, there was a housing bubble, and there are ways to mitigate high housing prices (one of which is renting).

I have seen local (decent) neighborhoods drop to 2005 prices (and continue to drop), while my down payment has increased substantially. What’s my opportunity cost?


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Sux if you're selling.  Those of us who aren't and paid off their mortgages are now either socking away the cash or using the equity to have fun.


True. But speaking of equity, how is one tapping into it whithout selling?


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> True. But speaking of equity, how is one tapping into it whithout selling?


I just closed on a refi at 3.75%.  I didn't sell anything.  I still own my home AND have a damn fine toy to play with this summer. A renter cannot do that.


----------



## GWguy

All I can say is that I will no longer be paying into a mortgage.  The money I would have used to pay the mortgage is not being used for rent.  It will be put into a high yield account.  At such time that the market for home sales recovers, and it will, I'll be ready to sell, take that money and invest that, and be that much farther ahead.  The price delta alone between what I paid for the house vs what I will sell it for INCLUDING the interest paid during the mortgage is far more than any interest I might have gained by selling now and investing.  And in the meantime, I have a place that is totally free from some landlord's whim, I can't be kicked out because he defaulted on HIS mortgage, I'm not paying HIS mortgage, and I can retire with no worries.

End game.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> I just closed on a refi at 3.75%.  I didn't sell anything.  I still own my home AND have a damn fine toy to play with this summer. A renter cannot do that.


I too have some new toys for the summer, but paid cash for them.

The economy may be the poorer for it, but recent times has shown it: Debt is not wealth.


----------



## Baja28

GWguy said:


> All I can say is that I will no longer be paying into a mortgage.  The money I would have used to pay the mortgage is not being used for rent.  It will be put into a high yield account.  At such time that the market for home sales recovers, and it will, I'll be ready to sell, take that money and invest that, and be that much farther ahead.  The price delta alone between what I paid for the house vs what I will sell it for INCLUDING the interest paid during the mortgage is far more than any interest I might have gained by selling now and investing.  And in the meantime, I have a place that is totally free from some landlord's whim, I can't be kicked out because he defaulted on HIS mortgage, I'm not paying HIS mortgage, and I can retire with no worries.
> 
> End game.


  I see my boy Two-er didn't last long.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> I too have some new toys for the summer, but paid cash for them.
> 
> The economy may be the poorer for it, but recent times has shown it: Debt is not wealth.


Hope you have a blast on that jetski.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Hope you have a blast on that jetski.


Bigger than a jetski, a little smaller than a 345 Conquest.


----------



## vraiblonde

vraiblonde said:


> That's pretty scary, when you think about it.  Irresponsible home buyers got in over their heads and now the government is supposed to bail them out?  How about if you rack up too much credit card debt with high interest?  Should the taxpayers have to bail you out of that, too?



I'm like a freakin' prophet.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> I'm like a freakin' prophet.


I'll say.


vraiblonde said:


> You are TOTALLY not going to get that kind of deal a year from now.


----------



## GWguy

vraiblonde said:


> I'm like a freakin' prophet.



Got lottery numbers for me?


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> I'll say.



So I'm not 100%.


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> I see my boy Two-er didn't last long.



You're fired


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> You're fired


You're owned!


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> Ok Einstein, lets back up here.
> 
> 1. How did you get a  paid off house worth $500K?
> 2. What kind of mortgages do you think you're going to get with $50K/year?  Remember, you said "several" earlier. Even if it were 2, you're living in a blue collar apt. at best.
> 
> You're not very good at this.



Where did I say several?

$50,000 a year in interest that you earn on your $500,000 investment will pay a mortgage on a $500,000 house (about $3,500) and a mortage on a $200,000 house (about $1300).  Live in the $500,000 house and let your kids live in the $200,000 house (or rent the $200,000 to someone else).



Or - live in your $500,000 house that's paid off, earn 1.25% annual return, and pay the couty $5000 a year for the priviledge of doing so.  My checking account earns 1.25%.


----------



## RareBreed

GWguy said:


> I resemble that.....
> 
> 
> 
> As one of those who "did it right", I can say that I am within months of completing my mortgage.  After that, it's 100% equity.



5 more years for us.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Two-er said:


> Where did I say several?
> 
> $50,000 a year in interest that you earn on your $500,000 investment will pay a mortgage on a $500,000 house (about $3,500) and a mortage on a $200,000 house (about $1300).  Live in the $500,000 house and let your kids live in the $200,000 house (or rent the $200,000 to someone else).
> 
> 
> 
> Or - live in your $500,000 house that's paid off, earn 1.25% annual return, and pay the couty $5000 a year for the priviledge of doing so.  My checking account earns 1.25%.



What about the people who cannot buy a house because of poor credit? I know of a few that have tried and tried and no luck. They had some medical problems and it screwed their credit scores, another person was laid off and had to file bankruptcy...they would love to buy a house, since they are paying rent and do not plan to move anytime soon. Are there any programs out there to help them?

off topic I know, sorry but would love to help them out if I can or pass on some good information to them.


----------



## DallasRed

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> What about the people who cannot buy a house because of poor credit? I know of a few that have tried and tried and no luck. They had some medical problems and it screwed their credit scores, another person was laid off and had to file bankruptcy...they would love to buy a house, since they are paying rent and do not plan to move anytime soon. Are there any programs out there to help them?
> 
> off topic I know, sorry but would love to help them out if I can or pass on some good information to them.




Do owner financing or a lease purchase.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

DallasRed said:


> Do owner financing or a lease purchase.



I am so sorry, I am a complete dumbass when it comes to these things, can you tell me more about this?


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Just saying that a $500,000 house sitting there earning 1.25% annual return is lame compared to $500,000 invested wisely earning 10-12%.  Even a modest 10% return on that $500,000 would earn you $50,000 a year.   In other words, more than enough to pay for your housing along with housing for a *few of your kids.*





Two-er said:


> Where did I say several? *See your post above.*
> 
> $50,000 a year in interest that you earn on your $500,000 investment will pay a mortgage on a $500,000 house (about $3,500) and a mortage on a $200,000 house (about $1300).  Live in the $500,000 house and let your kids live in the $200,000 house (or rent the $200,000 to someone else).
> 
> Or - live in your $500,000 house that's paid off, earn 1.25% annual return, and pay the couty $5000 a year for the priviledge of doing so.  My checking account earns 1.25%.


Ok, my turn to talk slow although I'm pretty sure you won't comprehend.

1. Where did you get the $500K to invest?
2. Where did you get the $500K house that's paid off?
3. Where do you get 10% interest?
4. What does any of this have to do with renting?  

Go away and don't come back until you can make sense.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> You're owned!


Wait a sec Baja….I forgot about this little tidbit…..you're still not accounting for the “housing bubble” (perhaps you’ve heard of it).

Yes, when ones mortgage payment is a little over $700, it’s hard to see where someone could go wrong by buying. You’re not accounting for a time frame in which mortgage prices were 40%-50%+ of income.


----------



## somdrenter

RareBreed said:


> 5 more years for us.


Is this a case in which you purchased during the bubble years and will have it paid of in 5 years?


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> 4. What does any of this have to do with renting?
> 
> Go away and don't come back until you can make sense.


What does purchasing at pre-bubble prices have to do with the topic at hand?


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> What does purchasing at pre-bubble prices have to do with the topic at hand?



okay, again I am not the smartest person in here, I can admit that. I also suck at grammar, but what is a bubble price?


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> What about the people who cannot buy a house because of poor credit? I know of a few that have tried and tried and no luck. They had some medical problems and it screwed their credit scores, another person was laid off and had to file bankruptcy...they would love to buy a house, since they are paying rent and do not plan to move anytime soon. Are there any programs out there to help them?
> 
> off topic I know, sorry but would love to help them out if I can or pass on some good information to them.


Fix your credit. Save for a down payment.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Wait a sec Baja….I forgot about this little tidbit…..you're still not accounting for the “housing bubble” (perhaps you’ve heard of it).
> 
> Yes, when ones mortgage payment is a little over $700, it’s hard to see where someone could go wrong by buying. You’re not accounting for a time frame in which mortgage prices were 40%-50%+ of income.


Well  I can't help you.  I suppose you'll just have to rent and make someone else's mortgage payment. :shrug:

This whole thing started a year or so ago when you and Patchy (mainly patchy) implied that anyone who bought or owned was a moron and that renting was the only way to go.  Well it isn't.  If you're 30+ years old and don't own your home, you're the moron.  Not those of us who bought and have paid off their homes.


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> Ok, my turn to talk slow although I'm pretty sure you won't comprehend.
> 
> 1. Where did you get the $500K to invest?
> 2. Where did you get the $500K house that's paid off?
> 3. Where do you get 10% interest?
> 4. What does any of this have to do with renting?
> 
> Go away and don't come back until you can make sense.



Come back when you can tell me why it's smart to sit in a house that's completely paid off and earning you 1.25% annual return and pay the county for the priviledge of doing so (which was my original point).

Meanwhile, don't quit your day job because you'll never be a real estate tycoon.  For the 2nd time in one thread - you're fired...


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> Fix your credit. Save for a down payment.



Not me but thanks. They have tried, they are working on it but somethings will not be fixable.

I was wondering if there are any options for them since the houses are so cheap now.


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> okay, again I am not the smartest person in here, I can admit that. I also suck at grammar, but what is a bubble price?


The housing bubble.......


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Not me but thanks. They have tried, they are working on it but somethings will not be fixable.
> 
> I was wondering if there are any options for them since the houses are so cheap now.


What qualifies as cheap? Would you not be better of at affordable?


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> The housing bubble.......



Please continue...I am interested in why this is a big deal. I owned a home, I chose to sell it and rent soley because it worked out for me since I am always being relocated every three to six months.

But other than that, I do have friends that are interested in buying a home for the security and investment. So what are you saying about the housing bubble?


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> What qualifies as cheap? Would you not be better of at affordable?



I do not understand what you are asking. If it the homes are cheaper, would that not make them more affordable??


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Well  I can't help you.  I suppose you'll just have to rent and make someone else's mortgage payment. :shrug:
> 
> This whole thing started a year or so ago when you and Patchy (mainly patchy) implied that anyone who bought or owned was a moron and that renting was the only way to go.  Well it isn't.  If you're 30+ years old and don't own your home, you're the moron.  Not those of us who bought and have paid off their homes.



Baja, if you haven’t noticed, you are paying someone’s else’s mortgage (if you’re a taxpayer). Me nor Patch has said buying a home makes you a “moron” and “renting is the only way to go”. 

We did call the housing bubble. We did predict the some of the economic effects of the burst. Again, comparing a $700 mortgage to a mortgage made during the run up is not looking at all the facts.


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Please continue...I am interested in why this is a big deal. I owned a home, I chose to sell it and rent soley because it worked out for me since I am always being relocated every three to six months.
> 
> But other then that, I do have friends that are interested in buying a home for the security and investment. So what are you saying about the housing bubble?


You got me there. Turn the TV to the financial news (just have it on in the background),  Google “Housing Bubble” and go from there.


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> I do not understand what you are asking. If it the homes are cheaper, would that not make them more affordable??


No. First, it has to be affordable before it becomes “more” affordable.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> No. First, it has to be affordable before it becomes “more” affordable.



I still have no clue what that means. If homes that were selling for 300k last year and are selling for 250k now, does that not make them cheaper and more affordable?


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Please continue...I am interested in why this is a big deal. I owned a home, I chose to sell it and rent soley because it worked out for me since I am always being relocated every three to six months.
> 
> But other than that, I do have friends that are interested in buying a home for the security and investment. So what are you saying about the housing bubble?


Real estate bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Come back when you can tell me why it's smart to sit in a house that's completely paid off and earning you 1.25% annual return and pay the county for the priviledge of doing so (which was my original point).
> 
> Meanwhile, don't quit your day job because you'll never be a real estate tycoon.  For the 2nd time in one thread - you're fired...


You are a complete moron.  What am I paying the county for??  Real estate taxes??  If so then you're even more stupid than I originally thought.  If you're renting, you're not only paying the landlords rent but you're also paying his taxes for him.  

I am sitting in my paid off house banking the rent payment that you make to your landlord.  What part don't you understand??  Jesus you're dense! 

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> You are a complete moron.  What am I paying the county for??  Real estate taxes??  If so then you're even more stupid than I originally thought.  If you're renting, you're not only paying the landlords rent but you're also paying his taxes for him.
> 
> I am sitting in my paid off house banking the rent payment that you make to your landlord.  What part don't you understand??  Jesus you're dense!
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.


The bailouts Baja….who do you think is paying for them? You (whose mortgage is paid off) are paying for someone else’s mortgage via the bailout(s). Honestly, I thought you’d understand my sig.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> The bailouts Baja….who do you think is paying for them? You (whose mortgage is paid off) are paying for someone else’s mortgage via the bailout(s). Honestly, I thought you’d understand my sig.


 I know that. My post is to Two-er who is too stupid to ever own a home.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Baja28 said:


> You are a complete moron.  What am I paying the county for??  Real estate taxes??  If so then you're even more stupid than I originally thought.  If you're renting, you're not only paying the landlords rent but you're also paying his taxes for him.
> 
> I am sitting in my paid off house banking the rent payment that you make to your landlord.  What part don't you understand??  Jesus you're dense!
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.



good points! making me reconsider buying afterall.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> I know that. My post is to Two-er who is too stupid to ever own a home.





Baja28 said:


> You are a complete moron.  What am I paying the county for??  Real estate taxes??  If so then you're even more stupid than I originally thought.  If you're renting, you're not only paying the landlords rent but you're also paying his taxes for him.
> 
> I am sitting in my paid off house banking the rent payment that you make to your landlord.  What part don't you understand??  Jesus you're dense!
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.


Historical fact Baja, housing barely keeps up with inflation. Looking at it purely as an investment strategy, it’s not one of the better ones.


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> You are a complete moron.  What am I paying the county for??  Real estate taxes??  If so then you're even more stupid than I originally thought.  If you're renting, you're not only paying the landlords rent but you're also paying his taxes for him.
> 
> I am sitting in my paid off house banking the rent payment that you make to your landlord.  What part don't you understand??  Jesus you're dense!
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.



Sorry - I own a home but unlike lots of folks, I don't have "bubble fever". I realize that homes are typically poor investments.  And I don't care what your situation is.  Answer my question about why it's smart for someone to live in a house that's paid off when all the capital is tied up and earning only 1.25%.  You won't answer because you have no answer.

Seems you are an epic failure when it comes to financial planning.


----------



## Two-er

somdrenter said:


> Historical fact Baja, housing barely keeps up with inflation. Looking at it purely as an investment strategy, it’s not one of the better ones.



Most financial planners agree.  Seems Baja still has "bubble fever".


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Historical fact Baja, housing barely keeps up with inflation. Looking at it purely as an investment strategy, it’s not one of the better ones.


I never said to buy as an investment. 




TrueSOMDGirl said:


> good points! making me reconsider buying afterall.


If there's is any way in hell you can buy a home....DO IT! 





Two-er said:


> Sorry - I own a home but unlike lots of folks, I don't have "bubble fever". I realize that homes are typically poor investments.  And I don't care what your situation is.  Answer my question about why it's smart for someone to live in a house that's paid off when all the capital is tied up and earning only 1.25%.  You won't answer because you have no answer.
> 
> Seems you are an epic failure when it comes to financial planning.


Seems you are some little kid that I am wasting my time on and the reason some animals eat their young. Go read post 462 then run along and play.  You can't be taught.  I'm done with you.


----------



## Two-er

Poor Baja.  Life as a bubble boy...


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Two-er said:


> Poor Baja.  Life as a bubble boy...



Well good way to make "his" point.


----------



## Two-er

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Well good way to make "his" point.



He has no point on this thread or any other thread.  He lives to argue with people and that's it.  Pathetic loser.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Two-er said:


> He has no point on this thread or any other thread.  He lives to argue with people and that's it.  Pathetic loser.



This point..



Baja28 said:


> Seems you are some little kid that I am wasting my time on and the reason some animals eat their young. Go read post 462 then run along and play.  You can't be taught.  I'm done with you.



There are somethings he comes off harshly about but he does have some valid points, JMO


----------



## Baja28

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> This point..
> There are somethings he comes off harshly about but he does have some valid points, JMO


 Ignore the little kid Two-er (it's ppl like him that make me harsh)  and think for yourself.  You seem pretty smart so ask yourself these questions:

Do I want to be 35, 40, 45 or 50 years old and not own my home?  
Do I want to be any of those ages and be facing a 30 year mortgage? 
Do I want to be any of those ages and be sending a couple thousand per month to a landlord (paying off HIS mortgage)?

I am 48 and paid off my home last year.  The only thing I owe are taxes and utilities.  That old mortgage payment now gows into an interest bearing account for me to do with what I wish.  Some people cannot grasp the beauty of this and think you should be sending your money to a landlord.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Baja28 said:


> Ignore the little kid Two-er and think for yourself.  You seem pretty smart so ask yourself these questions:
> 
> Do I want to be 35, 40, 45 or 50 years old and not own my home?
> Do I want to be any of those ages and be facing a 30 year mortgage? Do I want to be any of those ages and be sending a couple thousand per month to a landlord (paying off HIS mortgage)?
> 
> I am 48 and paid off my home last year.  The only thing I owe are taxes and utilities.  That old mortgage payment now grows into an interest bearing account for me to do with what I wish.  Some people cannot grasp the beauty of this and think you should be sending your money to a landlord.



Are you single?

But no I am far from smart, but thanks.

J/K but you are right. I thought I was doing a good thing but after reading all this, decided it might not be such a good plan I have afterall and will be looking into buying, and maybe renting while I am out.


----------



## kom526

Baja has saved so much money, he was able to upgrade from a one person kayak to a TWO person kayak.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

kom526 said:


> Baja has saved so much money, he was able to upgrade from a one person kayak to a TWO person kayak.



It does make sense what he is saying. I mean Damn he is only 48 and OWNS his home, not only that, instead of blowing the money he is putting it in the bank. Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## GWguy

kom526 said:


> Baja has saved so much money, he was able to upgrade from a one person kayak to a TWO person kayak.



:snort:


----------



## Baja28

kom526 said:


> Baja has saved so much money, he was able to upgrade from a one person kayak to a TWO person kayak.


Next summer is a Jon boat baby!


----------



## kom526

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> It does make sense what he is saying. I mean Damn he is only 48 and OWNS his home, not only that, instead of blowing the money he is putting it in the *T*ank. Sounds like a plan to me.



:fixed:


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

kom526 said:


> :fixed:



Ahh he must own a really big boat then. LOL


----------



## GWguy

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> It does make sense what he is saying. I mean Damn he is only 48 and OWNS his home, not only that, instead of blowing the money he is putting it in the bank. Sounds like a plan to me.



Not everything in life is all about investing and earning that last dollar possible.  You make a good plan, stick to it and you'll always stay ahead.  In spite of a divorce, I'm still just about to pay mine off, never considered bankruptcy.

Yes, I'm single too...


----------



## kom526

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Ahh he must own a really big boat then. LOL



That's what he likes to say to the ladies.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

GWguy said:


> Not everything in life is all about investing and earning that last dollar possible.  You make a good plan, stick to it and you'll always stay ahead.  In spite of a divorce, I'm still just about to pay mine off, never considered bankruptcy.
> 
> Yes, I'm single too...



But see, you have a good plan too! Divorce sucks, and you still are at the point of paying off your home soon, that is something to be really proud of, especially during these times.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

kom526 said:


> That's what he likes to say to the ladies.


----------



## GWguy

GWguy said:


> Yes, I'm single too...





TrueSOMDGirl said:


> But see, you have a good plan too! Divorce sucks, and you still are at the point of paying off your home soon, that is something to be really proud of, especially during these times.



  She didn't take the hint......  nutz.



NEXT!!!!


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

GWguy said:


> She didn't take the hint......  nutz.
> 
> 
> 
> NEXT!!!!



 I did I send you a beer!


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Ignore the little kid Two-er (it's ppl like him that make me harsh)  and think for yourself.  You seem pretty smart so ask yourself these questions:
> 
> Do I want to be 35, 40, 45 or 50 years old and not own my home?
> Do I want to be any of those ages and be facing a 30 year mortgage?
> Do I want to be any of those ages and be sending a couple thousand per month to a landlord (paying off HIS mortgage)?
> 
> I am 48 and paid off my home last year.  The only thing I owe are taxes and utilities.  That old mortgage payment now gows into an interest bearing account for me to do with what I wish.  Some people cannot grasp the beauty of this and think you should be sending your money to a landlord.


Keep in mind, Baja is a pre-bubble buyer at pre-bubble prices. You're smart enough to ask questions TrueSOMDGirl, but it makes me wonder how you've gone for so long not knowing about the housing bubble and its effects on the economy. I say do some more research and never stop asking questions... You should be in no hurry, plenty of foreclosures and mortgage re-sets to go through before this thing turns around.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> Keep in mind, Baja is a pre-bubble buyer at pre-bubble prices. You're smart enough to ask questions TrueSOMDGirl, but it makes me wonder how you've gone for so long not knowing about the housing bubble and its effects on the economy. I say do some more research and never stop asking questions... You should be in no hurry, plenty of foreclosures and mortgage re-sets to go through before this thing turns around.



eh I brought a house that I liked for the price I liked, then because of job decided to sell and rent because it was easier.


----------



## somdrenter

*Might not have to pay for it after all...*



> Bank of America steps up foreclosure prevention efforts
> By Les Christie, staff writerJanuary 26, 2010: 6:23 PM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- One roadblock slowing President Obama's foreclosure prevention program seems to be clearing away. Bank of America, the nation's largest mortgage lender, said Tuesday that it was the first lender to agree to lower or *eliminate payments *on second mortgages.



Boost for Obama's foreclosure prevention program - Jan. 26, 2010


----------



## Penn

I just posted in another thread, that I had secured - today - a 20 year note, refinancing my home, at an interest(APR) of 4.875%. That is going to make things a lot easier, should our tax rates go up, as a result of our exalted leader's spending tendencies.

Don't know how bad the tax rates will get, but a few extra bucks will surely help! Whew, what good luck I ran into!


----------



## somdrenter

Penn said:


> I just posted in another thread, that I had secured - today - a 20 year note, refinancing my home, at an interest(APR) of 4.875%. That is going to make things a lot easier, should our tax rates go up, as a result of our exalted leader's spending tendencies.
> 
> Don't know how bad the tax rates will get, but a few extra bucks will surely help! Whew, what good luck I ran into!


You couldn't get the bank to eliminate the payments?


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

somdrenter said:


> You couldn't get the bank to eliminate the payments?



Why have them elimnate payments if you are fully capable of paying them?
I would think that is for people who truly cannot pay, and people should not take advantage.


----------



## Penn

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Why have them elimnate payments if you are fully capable of paying them?
> I would think that is for people who truly cannot pay, and people should not take advantage.


 
The method I have set up is, the bank/lending institution pays for my state and county taxes, as well as my homeowners insurance, payments of that nature. I have it set up also, that the payment request(monthly mortgage) is sent electronically to my savings bank account, and the bank makes the payment for me, by wire/electronically, as well.

All I have to do is monitor the monthly statement, by mail or on my PC. The new refinance loan will operate the same way, I was assured, by the new bank/lending institution representative.


----------



## jetmonkey

Penn said:


> I just posted in another thread, that I had secured - today - *a 20 year note*, refinancing my home, at an interest(APR) of 4.875%. That is going to make things a lot easier, should our tax rates go up, as a result of our exalted leader's spending tendencies.
> 
> Don't know how bad the tax rates will get, but a few extra bucks will surely help! Whew, what good luck I ran into!



That seems a little optimistic.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Penn said:


> The method I have set up is, the bank/lending institution pays for my state and county taxes, as well as my homeowners insurance, payments of that nature. I have it set up also, that the payment request(monthly mortgage) is sent electronically to my savings bank account, and the bank makes the payment for me, by wire/electronically, as well.
> 
> All I have to do is monitor the monthly statement, by mail or on my PC. The new refinance loan will operate the same way, I was assured, by the new bank/lending institution representative.



Ahh thanks!


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> Why have them elimnate payments if you are fully capable of paying them?
> I would think that is for people who truly cannot pay, and people should not take advantage.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


----------



## jetmonkey

somdrenter said:


> From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.



Marx gets quoted a lot in this forum.


----------



## somdrenter

*Home prices fell 12% in 2009*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The real estate roller-coaster ride continued last year as the median price of U.S. single-family home plunged 11.9% to $173,200.
> 
> The housing situation had been looking up earlier in the year, with prices gaining ground in the first nine months. But the increases weren't enough to push the median home price above 2008's bar of $196,600, according to the National Association of Realtors.
> 
> And then, prices fell in the fourth quarter, dropping 2.9% compared to the previous three months and 4.1% compared to the last quarter of 2008.


Home prices fell 12% in 2009 - Feb. 11, 2010


----------



## Two-er

somdrenter said:


> Home prices fell 12% in 2009 - Feb. 11, 2010



Actually, DC area homes increased in value 3.8% last year.  

Seems like a windfall until you consider that the S&P 500 earned 26.46% last year.


----------



## somdrenter

Two-er said:


> Actually, DC area homes increased in value 3.8% last year.
> 
> Seems like a windfall until you consider that the S&P 500 earned 26.46% last year.


At $306k, that puts D.C. back up to 2003 prices...


----------



## Two-er

somdrenter said:


> At $306k, that puts D.C. back up to 2003 prices...



Yep - like I said earlier in the thread, folks who think the home they live in is a great investment still have the bubble mentality or they don't drill down.  Look at any historical data and it shows that homes are lousy investments.

I hear lots of folks say stuff like "WOW - my home has DOUBLED in value in only 20 years".  Well, good for you.  That's a whopping 3.5% annually.  My Fidelity Growth Fund earned 61.35% last year.


----------



## TrueSOMDGirl

Two-er said:


> Yep - like I said earlier in the thread, folks who think the home they live in is a great investment still have the bubble mentality or they don't drill down.  Look at any historical data and it shows that homes are lousy investments.
> 
> I hear lots of folks say stuff like "WOW - my home has DOUBLED in value in only 20 years".  Well, good for you.  That's a whopping 3.5% annually.  My Fidelity Growth Fund earned 61.35% last year.



But I think of all the money paid to rent and I will own nothing in 20 years, as opposed to paying the same amount for housing and actually owning it in the end, is that not a advantage?


----------



## somdrenter

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> But I think of all the money paid to rent and I will own nothing in 20 years, as opposed to paying the same amount for housing and actually owning it in the end, is that not a advantage?


Who's advocating renting for 20 years?

Now, if you rented for the last few years at half the cost of owning, and are now able to purchase at 2003 prices, do you see no advantage?


----------



## Two-er

TrueSOMDGirl said:


> But I think of all the money paid to rent and I will own nothing in 20 years, as opposed to paying the same amount for housing and actually owning it in the end, is that not a advantage?



I guess that depends.  My mortgage payment including, principal, interest, taxes, HOA, PMI, and insurance is about $2200 a month.  A house like mine could rent for about $1500 a month.  The renter gets a pre-tax savings of about $11,000 a year.  If the renter invests that $11,000 a year wisely, then in 20 years he'll have $750,000 give or take, and this takes into account inflation.

If the renter spends that $11,000 a year on beer, then I guess buying would be a better choice.  Even though I own, I sometimes wonder why.


----------



## Monello

somdrenter said:


> Who's advocating renting for 20 years?
> 
> Now, if you rented for the last few years at half the cost of owning, and are now able to purchase at 2003 prices, do you see no advantage?



You need a good crystal ball to pull this trick off.  Home ownership has a lot of hidden benefits besides financial.  Neighborhoods where most of the people own their own homes are, on average, better and safer than places with lots of transients.

Plus I don't get to 'use' my 401K unless you count staring at the statement.  A house, now you can make that a home.


----------



## Two-er

Monello said:


> Plus I don't get to 'use' my 401K unless you count staring at the statement.  A house, now you can make that a home.



You must be a young whippersnapper but that's OK.  Age 59.5 comes at you fast.  Too fast.


----------



## BOP

somdrenter said:


> What market indicators do you follow that indicate that the market will pick up?



I'd say the 2010 Elections is a big one.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Two-er said:


> Yep - like I said earlier in the thread, folks who think the home they live in is a great investment still have the bubble mentality or they don't drill down.  Look at any historical data and it shows that homes are lousy investments.
> 
> I hear lots of folks say stuff like "WOW - my home has DOUBLED in value in only 20 years".  Well, good for you.  That's a whopping 3.5% annually.  My Fidelity Growth Fund earned 61.35% last year.



What they don't realize if they added up all the payments they probably paid more than double for their house when you count the interest of the mortgage.


----------



## Two-er

czygvtwkr said:


> What they don't realize if they added up all the payments they probably paid more than double for their house when you count the interest of the mortgage.



If I owned my house for 30 years, I will have paid $425,000 in interest, taxes, HOA, and homeowner's insurance.  And that's assuming today's cost for taxes, HOA, and insurance.

That's about $1200 a month, every month, for 30 years that goes into someone else's pocket other than mine.


----------



## somdrenter

Monello said:


> You need a good crystal ball to pull this trick off.  Home ownership has a lot of hidden benefits besides financial.  Neighborhoods where most of the people own their own homes are, on average, better and safer than places with lots of transients.
> 
> Plus I don't get to 'use' my 401K unless you count staring at the statement.  A house, now you can make that a home.


Crystal Ball? In the example provided, no need, the MRIS stats show it clearly.


----------



## somdrenter

BOP said:


> I'd say the 2010 Elections is a big one.


In all the stats I have looked at, that is one that I have never seen.  How does one account for it? Will one party bring back loose lending and toxic mortgages and continue to prop up prices?


----------



## DallasRed

somdrenter said:


> Who's advocating renting for 20 years?
> 
> Now, if you rented for the last few years at half the cost of owning, and are now able to purchase at 2003 prices, do you see no advantage?



I don't remember if it was this thread but it was def in this forum...Saying to not buy a house if you were in the military..So what serve your country for 20 years and never buy a house..I'll pass on that.


----------



## kom526

DallasRed said:


> I don't remember if it was this thread but it was def in this forum...Saying to not buy a house if you were in the military..So what serve your country for 20 years and never buy a house..I'll pass on that.



I think the point of that posting was if you are only going to be in an area for 3 years then buying may not be the best option because if you have to sell you're going to lose money more than likely.


----------



## DallasRed

kom526 said:


> I think the point of that posting was if you are only going to be in an area for 3 years then buying may not be the best option because if you have to sell you're going to lose money more than likely.



Well, when you first get to an area you don't know if you will get another set of orders in the same place...I remember someone on here ranting that when you are in the military BAH is for rent...Not for buying a house..Getting BAH which is tax free and then getting another write-off on your taxes..BLAH BLAH you get the deal.  Or better yet put it this way..Only way you can home-stead anymore is if you are willing to stay at sea and never see your family..Or that house you bought..At least the wife and kids get to enjoy it


----------



## ProfMoneyWise

To peacefully purchase a house I advise one to be/have:

Be Debt Free

Have a fully funded emergency fund of 3 to 6 months living expenses in a separate account set aside for just this purpose.  This is not a fund to be used for any other reason.

Have enough of a down payment to avoid PMI (used to be 20%, may be more now)

Be able to afford a 15 year fixed mortgage where the total monthly payment (PITI + HOA) does not exceed more than 25% of your household take home income.

The above criteria keeps home ownership peaceful as it should be.  I work with many who are led down the road of "it is an investment" or "yes the payment is high but you will grow away from it" road.  Many of these investments end up on the foreclosure list and what no one tells the folks is that while their income rises so will the cost of everything else.

There is no shame in renting.  There is no shame in saying "you know what?  I just can't afford to buy a home right now."  

There is no shame in saving up until one can get out of debt, have an emergency fund to handle life, because life will happen.  Have enough of a down payment to avoid PMI entirely.  Have enough of a down payment to have a loan that you can see the end of and enough left over after you make your house payment to buy things like gas, food, tires, clothes and plan for your retirement.

I've been called unrealistic.  I've been told "nobody can meet these conditions."  I disagree.


----------



## Two-er

ProfMoneyWise said:


> I work with many who are led down the road of "it is an investment"



I think lots of sellers and agents try and exploit folks who still have bubble fever.  These are folks who think that when prices hit bottom that we're going to instantly reenter another bubble.


----------



## vraiblonde

I think that if you folks want to have someone else control your living environment, tell you what pets you can and can't have, tell you what repairs will and will not be made, what plants will and will not be put in your yard, what color your walls must be, how many people you can have over to your house, etc...

...keep renting.  :shrug:

PMW is hyper-conservative when it comes to finances, but people buy houses all the time without the strict criteria he lays down, and it's just fine.  More people kept their homes than lost them over the last few years.  And most of the people who lost their home were on some crap mortgage that they couldn't afford, and should have known better, or they were investors.

Typically you're going to pay almost as much for rent as you would for a house payment, so why keep paying a landlord??


----------



## vraiblonde

ProfMoneyWise said:


> plan for your retirement.



PS, home ownership IS a plan for your retirement.  If you get a 30 year mortgage on a house when you're 30, you will be 60 when it's paid off.  Then, when you retire and are on fixed income, you won't have to worry about shelling out that money every month.

If you keep renting, however, you will be a 70 year old person living in an apartment eating cat food because you can't afford your rent.

I am not saying that some 20 year old kid making $15k a year should go take out a mortgage on a $500,000 house.  I am saying that if you *can* afford to buy, you should.  And forget having a million $$$ in the bank first as a cushion.  That's unrealistic crap.


----------



## ProfMoneyWise

vraiblonde said:


> I think that if you folks want to have someone else control your living environment, tell you what pets you can and can't have, tell you what repairs will and will not be made, what plants will and will not be put in your yard, what color your walls must be, how many people you can have over to your house, etc...
> 
> ...keep renting.  :shrug:
> 
> PMW is hyper-conservative when it comes to finances, but people buy houses all the time without the strict criteria he lays down, and it's just fine.  More people kept their homes than lost them over the last few years.  And most of the people who lost their home were on some crap mortgage that they couldn't afford, and should have known better, or they were investors.
> 
> Typically you're going to pay almost as much for rent as you would for a house payment, so why keep paying a landlord??



We really are not that far apart on this.  My criteria helps keep folks from bad mortgages and investing instead of buying it to live in.

One point to offer to the rent payment vs. mortgage payment point you make is the mortgage payment is not all there is to home ownership.  This is sometimes presented to the prospective buyers as a principal and interest payment only.  The property tax and homeowners insurance numbers are left out of the equation.

In addition if the furnace breaks in a rental it is a phone call to a landlord.  If a furance breaks in your owned home it is on the owner.

I am all for home ownership.  I am not for home ownership at any cost.  I once had a person tell me "I am buying a home because it is a goal of mine."  I helped them run their numbers.  I showed them they could not cover their basic living expenses and other debt and the home.  I was told, "my realtor said I could and I can get the money (subprime) so you are wrong."

It was foreclosed upon I am told.

Again, we are not that far apart on this.  I just listed the criteria that I know will work.


----------



## Baja28

vraiblonde said:


> PS, home ownership IS a plan for your retirement.  If you get a 30 year mortgage on a house when you're 30, you will be 60 when it's paid off.  Then, when you retire and are on fixed income, you won't have to worry about shelling out that money every month.
> 
> If you keep renting, however, you will be a 70 year old person living in an apartment eating cat food because you can't afford your rent.


This is what I've been trying to tell these fools but they are too dense to absorb common sense so I gave up. 

 If Two-er thinks anyone is going to believe he made 61% in the market, he's more delusional  than I already had him pegged as being. He's also in fantasy land thinking rents are much cheaper than mortgages.  Then again he was unable to answer my earlier questions when he was posting from his ass so I see what we're dealing with here, a delusional schizo living in la la land.


----------



## vraiblonde

ProfMoneyWise said:


> One point to offer to the rent payment vs. mortgage payment point you make is the mortgage payment is not all there is to home ownership.  This is sometimes presented to the prospective buyers as a principal and interest payment only.  The property tax and homeowners insurance numbers are left out of the equation.



Typically you get a number, PITI.  THAT is the number you work with, not merely the principle and interest.  Both times I have purchased a home, that is the number the mortgage people gave me, then  pre-approved me for a certain amount based on the monthly PITI.

It's pretty simple to run the numbers and compare it to your income, what you're currently paying for rent, what you can afford to pay, etc.  If you currently pay $1000/mo for rent and are strapped, you cannot afford a $1500/mo mortgage.  Simple.

Again, if you read the sob stories about people losing their homes, you'll find a lot of A) investors; and B) people who felt the need to buy new cars, furniture, trips, etc, in addition to their new home.  They could have afforded their mortgage just fine until they racked up $20k in credit card debt.

Like this one family, and I think the link is actually in this thread somewhere.  They're whining about foreclosure while their children are going to some fancy private school, they drive around in luxury automobiles, and are doing all their grocery shopping at the Whole Foods.  This is not a family who over-bought their home - they are overspending on other things.


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> If Two-er thinks anyone is going to believe he made 61% in the market, he's more delusional  than I already had him pegged as being. He's also in fantasy land thinking rents are much cheaper than mortgages.  Then again he was unable to answer my earlier questions when he was posting from his ass so I see what we're dealing with here, a delusional schizo living in la la land.



Who let Bajama Boy out of his bubble?  Put your Bajamas on and get back in your bubble.


----------



## Baja28

ProfMoneyWise said:


> The property tax and homeowners insurance numbers are left out of the equation.


You're not a stupid man.  Do you for one second believe that the landlords property taxes and insurance are not built into your monthly rent?? 





ProfMoneyWise said:


> In addition if the furnace breaks in a rental it is a phone call to a landlord.  If a furance breaks in your owned home it is on the owner.


 I just replaced my entire heating and cooling system with a top of the line Rheem 16 seer system for $5,200.00.  Since my home was paid for that equated to 4 months of my prior mortgage.  Guess what I did with the other $10,400.00?? 





ProfMoneyWise said:


> Again, we are not that far apart on this.  I just listed the criteria that I know will work.


I have actually managed my finances based on much of the advice you've posted and it works very well.  Just be sure to include all the facts.


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Who let Bajama Boy out of his bubble?  Put your Bajamas on and get back in your bubble.


Case in point.


----------



## vraiblonde

Baja28 said:


> You're not a stupid man.  Do you for one second believe that the landlords property taxes and insurance are not built into your monthly rent??



I think he was talking about your mortgage number, as in the financial people give you a number that is PI only, then you get a nasty surprise when they add in the TI.  I have not found this to be the case in my home buying situations.  I was always given the PITI number as a monthly payment.

Also, I don't know where people are coming up with these crazy lenders and RE agents.  Both times I've bought a house, the lender and the agent were very realistic and honest with me on what I could afford, and didn't try to talk me into going higher.  In fact, the first time my ex and I bought, when we were in our mid-20s, our agent was Lorrie Garner from O'Brien, and she actually tried to talk us down, even though we were pre-approved for more.  Then she found us a perfect little house that we could easily afford, and still have some left over for playing around with.

So I don't know where people are finding all these predators....


----------



## Baja28

vraiblonde said:


> I think he was talking about your mortgage number, as in the financial people give you a number that is PI only, then you get a nasty surprise when they add in the TI.  I have not found this to be the case in my home buying situations.  I was always given the PITI number as a monthly payment.
> 
> Also, I don't know where people are coming up with these crazy lenders and RE agents.  Both times I've bought a house, the lender and the agent were very realistic and honest with me on what I could afford, and didn't try to talk me into going higher.  In fact, the first time my ex and I bought, when we were in our mid-20s, our agent was Lorrie Garner from O'Brien, and she actually tried to talk us down, even though we were pre-approved for more.  Then she found us a perfect little house that we could easily afford, and still have some left over for playing around with.
> 
> So I don't know where people are finding all these predators....


Gotcha and agree.  I've never known anything but PITI and they were always automatically deducted and paid by my lender.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they are shown on the Truth in Lending statement you're given showing you what your closing and mortgage costs will be.


----------



## Bann

February 11th was my 1 year anniversary of being a homeowner.  



(2nd time, but first time on my own)


----------



## DallasRed

vraiblonde said:


> I think that if you folks want to have someone else control your living environment, tell you what pets you can and can't have, tell you what repairs will and will not be made, what plants will and will not be put in your yard, what color your walls must be, how many people you can have over to your house, etc...
> 
> ...keep renting.  :shrug:
> 
> PMW is hyper-conservative when it comes to finances, but people buy houses all the time without the strict criteria he lays down, and it's just fine.  More people kept their homes than lost them over the last few years.  And most of the people who lost their home were on some crap mortgage that they couldn't afford, and should have known better, or they were investors.
> 
> Typically you're going to pay almost as much for rent as you would for a house payment, so why keep paying a landlord??



I'm not in a typical situation...I am a home owner and I rent.  My rent is 1K more than my house note each month...Go figure.  But at the same time my renter pays more on rent than I pay the bank : )


----------



## Baja28

Bann said:


> February 11th was my 1 year anniversary of being a homeowner.
> 
> 
> 
> (2nd time, but first time on my own)


  Good for you!!  When it's paid off and the renters are still writing that rent check, you can have the last laugh!


----------



## Baja28

DallasRed said:


> I'm not in a typical situation...I am a home owner and I rent.  My rent is 1K more than my house note each month...Go figure.  But at the same time my renter pays more on rent than I pay the bank : )


And when your mortgage is paid off, you'll OWN that home and that rent check goes into your slush fund!


----------



## vraiblonde

DallasRed said:


> I'm not in a typical situation...I am a home owner and I rent.  My rent is 1K more than my house note each month...Go figure.  But at the same time my renter pays more on rent than I pay the bank : )



Why do you not live in your house?


----------



## DallasRed

vraiblonde said:


> Why do you not live in your house?



Because the military moved us here : )


----------



## vraiblonde

DallasRed said:


> Because the military moved us here : )



OIC.  I thought your house was here with you.


----------



## vraiblonde

MarylandMark said:


> You make this much, pay out this much- pretty simple.



Pretty simple.  :shrug:


----------



## kom526

vraiblonde said:


> Pretty simple.  :shrug:



Yeah, but you can't fix stupid.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> Typically you're going to pay almost as much for rent as you would for a house payment, so why keep paying a landlord??


And that just ain’t so. During the bubble years, rentals were roughly ½ the cost of owning. Rents must be directly tied to local incomes. There were no toxic mortgages, loose lending or liar loans to prop up the rental market.


----------



## somdrenter

ProfMoneyWise said:


> Be able to afford a 15 year fixed mortgage where the total monthly payment (PITI + HOA) does not exceed more than 25% of your household take home income.


So you’re saying 3.9x income is a little too much? That was the "norm" just a few years ago…


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> And that just ain’t so. During the bubble years, rentals were roughly ½ the cost of owning. Rents must be directly tied to local incomes. There were no toxic mortgages, loose lending or liar loans to prop up the rental market.


 You must be renting a 1 BR apt.  Housing rentals were the same or higher than mortgages!  I could easily rent my house for MORE than my mortgage payment.


----------



## vraiblonde

somdrenter said:


> And that just ain’t so. During the bubble years, rentals were roughly ½ the cost of owning. Rents must be directly tied to local incomes. *There were no toxic mortgages, loose lending or liar loans to prop up the rental market.*



You're stuck on stupid.

If you do not want to buy a home and want to continue renting, go ahead.  Nobody is stopping you.  But this phobia you have about *others* buying a home is just too much.  Even your user name points to your obsession.


----------



## nomoney

Baja28 said:


> You must be renting a 1 BR apt. Housing rentals were the same or higher than mortgages! I could easily rent my house for MORE than my mortgage payment.


 

I'd hate to differ - but because of life circumstances I have rented for the last two years.  Both places I have rented for well under what a mortgage for owning the same home would've cost me.  

On that note I just became a home owner again in November so I'm not "all for" renting - I just wanted to put that out there.


----------



## Baja28

nomoney said:


> I'd hate to differ - but because of life circumstances I have rented for the last two years.  Both places I have rented for well under what a mortgage for owning the same home would've cost me.
> 
> On that note I just became a home owner again in November so I'm not "all for" renting - I just wanted to put that out there.


You had a great deal.  That is definitely not the norm.  Rental rates have not decreased in fact, they've increased. I mean think about it, who would rent their house for less than their mortgage (unless they were one who overpaid for their house)?


----------



## czygvtwkr

Baja28 said:


> You must be renting a 1 BR apt.  Housing rentals were the same or higher than mortgages!  I could easily rent my house for MORE than my mortgage payment.



Not quite,  I had a nice 2Br apt for $850 a month and then bought a house and my payments are about $1800 a month.


----------



## somdrenter

vraiblonde said:


> You're stuck on stupid.
> 
> If you do not want to buy a home and want to continue renting, go ahead.  Nobody is stopping you.  But this phobia you have about *others* buying a home is just too much.  Even your user name points to your obsession.


Sorry vrail, but somehow you’ve glanced over the facts, deemed they don’t apply, and then continue with straw man comments.

I’m all for home ownership. Heck, don’t stop at one, buy several. Throw in a few vacation homes to boot. But as the last few years has shown, there have been better alternatives financially and it’s generally accepted that prices were propped up significantly by artificial measures.

So, go forth, purchase thine home of thy dream. Just keep in mind the consequences of ignoring historic fundamentals and don’t look to tax payers for a bailout if things go awry.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> You had a great deal.  That is definitely not the norm.  Rental rates have not decreased in fact, they've increased. I mean think about it, who would rent their house for less than their mortgage (unless they were one who overpaid for their house)?







> Where's housing headed? Follow rents
> By Shawn Tully, senior editor at largeFebruary 12, 2010: 2:49 PM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It may not be the most widespread measure of housing prices, but if you want to follow a powerful driver, look at rents.
> 
> Specifically, it's the rents Americans pay on condos, apartments or houses that are about the same size, and share the same neighborhood as your ranch or colonial, that in the end determine what your house is worth.
> 
> "If you look at the trend in rents to see where housing prices are headed, you're looking at the right measure," says Yale economist Robert Shiller...
> 
> ….In normal times, people won't pay much less to lease a house than to own it. After all, if you're paying rent instead of a mortgage and taxes, you still get to enjoy the same rec room, chef's kitchen, and casita for visiting grandparents. So the surest sign of a frenzy appears when owning becomes far more expensive than renting. That's precisely what happened during the last bubble....
> 
> ...And the surest sign that prices have fully adjusted arrives when the ratio of what people pay in rent versus what owners spend on the same property returns to its historic average…..
> 
> ….On average, DB found that families across America were spending about 87% as much to rent as to own in 1999. Hence, they were traditionally willing to pay a premium as homeowners, though not a big one…
> 
> ….But by mid-2006, with the craze in full swing, the figure fell below 60%. At that point, Americans were spending an incredible 66% more to own than to rent…..
> 
> …..So how did that happen? During the bubble, rents -- the real engine that drives values -- were inching along at more or less their usual pace. From 1999 to 2007, apartment r*ents increased only 32%*. But home prices jumped more than three times as fast, *around 105%*......
> 
> …..DB reckoned that housing prices are more or less reasonable when the ratio returns to its 1999 level. Why 1999? Because the ratio was relatively stable throughout the 1990s, and it was the year the steep rise in prices began in earnest….
> 
> ….What does that mean for future prices?
> 
> Given that analysis, it's likely that prices will fall another 5% or so nationwide. The drop could even be slightly greater. One reason: Rents, the force that govern housing prices, are still falling….


To gauge housing prices, look to rents - Feb. 12, 2010


----------



## oldman

nomoney said:


> I'd hate to differ - but because of life circumstances I have rented for the last two years.  Both places I have rented for well under what a mortgage for owning the same home would've cost me.
> 
> On that note I just became a home owner again in November so I'm not "all for" renting - I just wanted to put that out there.



I'm not anti home ownership either but I've been renting for over 10 years for $450 a month.  You can't beat that.  It's not a palace but far from a dump.  To each their own I guess.


----------



## Baja28

czygvtwkr said:


> Not quite,  I had a nice 2Br apt for $850 a month and then bought a house and my payments are about $1800 a month.


You bought a 2 BR house the same size as your apt. and pay more than double?  Why?


----------



## Two-er

somdrenter said:


> So you’re saying 3.9x income is a little too much? That was the "norm" just a few years ago…



I think the rule #'s vary.  Many use the 28/36 rule which is based on gross income.

Housing cost not over 28% of gross
Total monthly bills not over 36% of gross

I think using gross is better because many folks put a ton into their 401K which makes it look like they're poor when looking just at net income.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Baja28 said:


> You bought a 2 BR house the same size as your apt. and pay more than double?  Why?



No I moved from a 2br apt to a 3br house on a half acre. Saying it costs as much to rent as it does to buy is just plain wrong. 

On another note commercial properties are often collecting less in rent than their mortgage at first because they know that the rent they can charge will raise over time but their payments don't increase.  If I had to move I wouldn't have any qualms about renting out my place for less then my mortgage payment.  The problems I have are with the hassles of renting out in general.


----------



## Baja28

czygvtwkr said:


> No I moved from a 2br apt to a 3br house on a half acre. Saying it costs as much to rent as it does to buy is just plain wrong.
> 
> On another note commercial properties are often collecting less in rent than their mortgage at first because they know that the rent they can charge will raise over time but their payments don't increase.  If I had to move I wouldn't have any qualms about renting out my place for less then my mortgage payment.  The problems I have are with the hassles of renting out in general.


See you're comparing apples to oranges.  You can't compare the rent of a 2 BR apt. to a 3 BR house with half an acre.  You could easily rent your house for $1,800.00/mth.


----------



## nomoney

Baja28 said:


> See you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the rent of a 2 BR apt. to a 3 BR house with half an acre. You could easily rent your house for $1,800.00/mth.


 

alright, how bout dis - House # 1 I rented for $1250/mo - 3 acres, on the water with my own private pier - 3 car garage, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, all wood floors. House #2 I rented for 1500$/mo. 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3000+ square feet, right on the water with my back deck walking out on my own private pier, covered parking for 3 cars, wood throughout, granite counter tops the whole lot - basically a million dollar home. I buy a house for 280k, its basically a rambler on a finished basement and my mortgage is 1800$ /mo. 

Now like I said, I'm all for owning and not renting cause now I get to do what I want when I want plus I love my tax refund. Buuuttt.....the argument that you're trying to prove here isn't exactly right on. Go to realto.rcom and see how much house you can get now for what you're paying in a mortgage. Theres TONS out there and there's some really really nice ones for not that much $.

Not everyone gets exactly what they're paying in mortgage out of rent - lots do it as an investment and can actually take a loss on the rent so as to get a sweet write off for taxes. Others have owned the house and the rent is just money in the bank. I'm pretty sure no one would rent my house for what I pay for a mortgage payment; not with all the awesome homes out there right now for less.


----------



## Baja28

nomoney said:


> alright, how bout dis - House # 1 I rented for $1250/mo - 3 acres, on the water with my own private pier - 3 car garage, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, all wood floors. House #2 I rented for 1500$/mo. 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3000+ square feet, right on the water with my back deck walking out on my own private pier, covered parking for 3 cars, wood throughout, granite counter tops the whole lot - basically a million dollar home. I buy a house for 280k, its basically a rambler on a finished basement and my mortgage is 1800$ /mo.
> 
> Now like I said, I'm all for owning and not renting cause now I get to do what I want when I want plus I love my tax refund. Buuuttt.....the argument that you're trying to prove here isn't exactly right on. Go to realto.rcom and see how much house you can get now for what you're paying in a mortgage. Theres TONS out there and there's some really really nice ones for not that much $.
> 
> Not everyone gets exactly what they're paying in mortgage out of rent - lots do it as an investment and can actually take a loss on the rent so as to get a sweet write off for taxes. Others have owned the house and the rent is just money in the bank. I'm pretty sure no one would rent my house for what I pay for a mortgage payment; not with all the awesome homes out there right now for less.


I think you have to admit that you had a hell of a deal renting that much water front for that little amount.  I don't believe that is real world.  If that's the case everyone would be on waterfront property.  I'll rent it and rent my house out.


----------



## BadGirl

nomoney said:


> alright, how bout dis - House # 1 I rented for $1250/mo - 3 acres, on the water with my own private pier - 3 car garage, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, all wood floors. House #2 I rented for 1500$/mo. 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths, 3000+ square feet, right on the water with my back deck walking out on my own private pier, covered parking for 3 cars, wood throughout, granite counter tops the whole lot - basically a million dollar home. I buy a house for 280k, its basically a rambler on a finished basement and my mortgage is 1800$ /mo.
> 
> Now like I said, I'm all for owning and not renting cause now I get to do what I want when I want plus I love my tax refund. Buuuttt.....the argument that you're trying to prove here isn't exactly right on. Go to realto.rcom and see how much house you can get now for what you're paying in a mortgage. Theres TONS out there and there's some really really nice ones for not that much $.
> 
> Not everyone gets exactly what they're paying in mortgage out of rent - lots do it as an investment and can actually take a loss on the rent so as to get a sweet write off for taxes. Others have owned the house and the rent is just money in the bank. I'm pretty sure no one would rent my house for what I pay for a mortgage payment; not with all the awesome homes out there right now for less.


One thing to put things in to perspective, tho, is to remember that with House #1, you were living in a home that was built in the early 40's, right?  And recall that the electricity bills were routinely very high, as compared to what other people were paying.  So...you had a somewhat low rent, but the electricity bills were very high, and the long commute and the lack of close-by shopping is what made the rent so reasonable.

House #2 had the same deficiencies (high electricity bills, long commute, no close-by shopping), but the house was at least beautiful and new.  The lower rent reflected that that home would not appeal to a really wide audience of renters/buyers.

:shrug:


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> You must be renting a 1 BR apt.  Housing rentals were the same or higher than mortgages!  I could easily rent my house for MORE than my mortgage payment.





Baja28 said:


> See you're comparing apples to oranges.



Another good apples to oranges comparison, is comparing a ~$700 pre-bubble mortgage payment with average mortgage payments during the bubble years.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Baja28 said:


> See you're comparing apples to oranges.  You can't compare the rent of a 2 BR apt. to a 3 BR house with half an acre.  You could easily rent your house for $1,800.00/mth.



Actually I could expect about $1200/month from what I have seen people rent their comparable houses out for.


----------



## somdrenter

BadGirl said:


> One thing to put things in to perspective, tho, is to remember that with House #1, you were living in a home that was built in the early 40's, right?  And recall that the electricity bills were routinely very high, as compared to what other people were paying.  So...you had a somewhat low rent, but the electricity bills were very high, and the long commute and the lack of close-by shopping is what made the rent so reasonable.
> 
> House #2 had the same deficiencies (high electricity bills, long commute, no close-by shopping), but the house was at least beautiful and new.  The lower rent reflected that that home would not appeal to a really wide audience of renters/buyers.
> 
> :shrug:


But we’re talking comps here. At some price point, the cost of purchasing House #X in addition to the high electricity bills, when you could rent a _comparable _house instead (at a much lower cost) makes purchasing not as financially attractive.


----------



## somdrenter

Two-er said:


> I think the rule #'s vary.  Many use the 28/36 rule which is based on gross income.
> 
> Housing cost not over 28% of gross
> Total monthly bills not over 36% of gross
> 
> I think using gross is better because many folks put a ton into their 401K which makes it look like they're poor when looking just at net income.


That's 3.9X for mortgage alone.....not total bills...that I was refering too.


----------



## somdrenter

*Mris Stats*

MRIS stats for yearend totals are out for 2009. Welcome back to 2005 prices.

Year End Real Estate Trend Indicator

Now, if only we could get the government out of the business of propping up home prices..


----------



## Two-er

somdrenter said:


> MRIS stats for yearend totals are out for 2009. Welcome back to 2005 prices.
> 
> Year End Real Estate Trend Indicator
> 
> Now, if only we could get the government out of the business of propping up home prices..



Good Find
Bad News

I wonder if the below stat is based on "original" list price or "final" list price. 

*Avg Sale Price as a percentage of Avg List Price: 92.41 %  *


----------



## somdrenter

Two-er said:


> Good Find
> Bad News
> 
> I wonder if the below stat is based on "original" list price or "final" list price.
> 
> *Avg Sale Price as a percentage of Avg List Price: 92.41 %  *


It _should _be original price, but it’s the price at the time of sale. In other words, it does not follow the market down. Keep in mind, all this data is skewed for the better for the seller (i.e. sellers agent). When the bubble first started showing its cracks, it was not uncommon to see the list price changed to the selling price; making this percentage for that particular house 100%. Also, these prices do not account for seller subsidies (and neither does the tax man for that matter). If the price is $290k with $10k in seller subsidies, $290k gets reported and that is what is taxed.

Bad news? Hardly. This is how the housing “problem” gets “fixed”. A return to fundamentals, namely incomes. Not propped up by loose lending, toxic mortgages or federal subsidies.


----------



## Two-er

somdrenter said:


> Bad news? Hardly. This is how the housing “problem” gets “fixed”. A return to fundamentals, namely incomes. Not propped up by loose lending, toxic mortgages or federal subsidies.



Yep - good news for those who want to restore sanity and the status quo back to the housing marking.

Bad news for those who only a few years ago thought their house was equivalent to a winning lotto ticket.

On the downside, I guess if new buyers know that prices haven't even hit bottom yet, then that could slow recovery even more and just have a snowball effect.  What a mess.


----------



## somdrenter

*Get ready for higher mortgage rates*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Even though signs of a housing recovery are uneven at best, the Federal Reserve is about to take off the training wheels it has had in place for more than a year to help the battered market.
> The Fed has been buying mortgage-backed securities, the bundling of home loans that are used to fund mortgage lending, since late 2008. But next month it plans to complete its purchase of $1.25 trillion in mortgages
> 
> ….End of tax credit to add to problems. The worries about the Fed pulling back support for housing are compounded by the end of up to $8,000 in tax credits for home buyers. To qualify, buyers face an April 30 deadline to sign a sales contract.
> Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argues that the Fed's program and tax credit for home buyers "ended the free fall in home prices."
> But he thinks that the removal of this support could mean that home prices could start to drop by as much as 1% a month again. He also thinks mortgage rates could climb by as much as a percentage point in the coming months…..



Fed's next move to hit housing, mortgage rates - Feb. 23, 2010


----------



## somdrenter

*Nearly 25% of all mortgages are underwater*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More bad news on the housing bust front: Nearly 25% of all mortgage borrowers were underwater, meaning they owe more on their loans than their homes are worth.
> 
> First American CoreLogic, the research firm that monitors housing equity, reported Tuesday that 11.3 million homeowners -- or 24% of all homes with mortgages -- were underwater as of the end of 2009. That's up from 23% and 10.7 million borrowers three month earlier.


Nearly 25% of all mortgages are underwater - Feb. 23, 2010


----------



## kom526

somdrenter said:


> Nearly 25% of all mortgages are underwater - Feb. 23, 2010



Which means over 75% are not underwater. In this case the glass is over 3/4 full.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Nearly 25% of all mortgages are underwater - Feb. 23, 2010


Dude, you need a life.


----------



## remaxrealtor

somdrenter said:


> It _should _be original price, but it’s the price at the time of sale. In other words, it does not follow the market down. Keep in mind, all this data is skewed for the better for the seller (i.e. sellers agent). When the bubble first started showing its cracks, it was not uncommon to see the list price changed to the selling price; making this percentage for that particular house 100%. Also, these prices do not account for seller subsidies (and neither does the tax man for that matter). If the price is $290k with $10k in seller subsidies, $290k gets reported and that is what is taxed.
> 
> Bad news? Hardly. This is how the housing “problem” gets “fixed”. A return to fundamentals, namely incomes. Not propped up by loose lending, toxic mortgages or federal subsidies.



Wow....where do you get your information?


----------



## somdrenter

remaxrealtor said:


> Wow....where do you get your information?


MRIS Statistics

MDLandRec.Net A Digital Image Retrieval System for Land Records in Maryland

Real Property Search


----------



## kom526

somdrenter said:


> Bad news? Hardly. This is how the housing “problem” gets “fixed”. A return to fundamentals, namely incomes. Not propped up by loose lending, toxic mortgages or federal subsidies.



Abolish Freddy, Fanny and repeal the CRA. :easypeasy:


----------



## somdrenter

*New home sales fall to a record low*



Baja28 said:


> Dude, you need a life.





> By Ben Rooney, staff reporterFebruary 24, 2010: 12:41 PM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Sales of new homes plunged to a record low in January, government figures showed Wednesday, as the weak economy and a glut of foreclosed homes continue to weigh on the market.
> 
> The seasonally adjusted annual rate of new home sales plummeted 11.2% to 309,000 last month, compared with a revised rate of 348,000 in December, the Census Bureau said. That's a decline 6.1% from January 2009.
> 
> It was the lowest rate since the government began keeping records in 1963 and comes after declines in November and December.
> 
> ...What's driving the market: The market for new homes remains pressured by a glut of foreclosed properties and high unemployment.
> 
> "Distressed inventory continues to hit the market at cut-rate prices, drawing potential buyers away from new product," said Mike Larson, real estate analyst at Weiss Research. "And let's face it, the job market is nothing to write home about, either."


New home sales fall to a record low - Feb. 24, 2010


----------



## Monello

Man, I luv this thread.


----------



## Two-er

Baja28 said:


> Dude, you need a life.



Instead of making judgements about what he does to pass the time, perhaps you could bring some facts to the table to counter all of his facts.  Otherwise, you're just like Barney Frank.


----------



## somdrenter

*Duck! Watch out for falling home prices*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite signs that the real estate market might be lurching forward, prices are expected to fall further this year and next.
> 
> The average home price in the United States will fall by about 6% by September 2011, according to Fiserv, a division of Moody's Economy.com. And that's after plunging more than 27% in the past three years.


Duck! Watch out for falling home prices - Feb. 25, 2010


----------



## Baja28

Two-er said:


> Instead of making judgements about what he does to pass the time, perhaps you could bring some facts to the table to counter all of his facts.  Otherwise, you're just like Barney Frank.


Sorry sweetie, there are much more interesting/fun things to discuss than posting about the housing market and bragging that you rent.  But you two continue right along with your boring little thread.


----------



## Two-er

What's with the sweetie referrence?  You must have me mistaken for your cellmate.


----------



## Two-er

In the spirit of this thread, it looks like Wildewood condos can now be had in the low $130's.


----------



## Two-er

In the sprit of this thread, it looks like Wildewood single family homes in the existing sections can now be had for under $300,000 (MLS SM7284012).  You'd probably have to go back almost 10 years to be able to say that.  

And the carnage continues.


----------



## Two-er

Two-er said:


> In the sprit of this thread, it looks like Wildewood single family homes in the existing sections can now be had for under _*$275,000 *_(MLS SM7286790).  You'd probably have to go back almost 10 years to be able to say that.
> 
> And the carnage continues.



fixed


----------



## somdrenter

*New-home sales fall to record low*



> By Chavon Sutton, staff reporterMarch 24, 2010: 11:31 AM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Sales of new homes fell to a record low in February, according to a government report released Wednesday, as the glut of foreclosed homes and a weak economy dampened the housing market.
> 
> New-home sales fell 2.2% to a seasonally adjusted rate of 308,000 last month, compared to a upwardly revised annual rate of 315,000 in January, the Census Bureau said.
> 
> It was the lowest rate since the government began keeping records in 1963 and marked the fourth straight month of declines.
> 
> A consensus of economists surveyed by Briefing.com expected February sales to rise to an annual rate of 315,000.
> 
> New-home sales were down 13% from February 2009.


New-home sales dip 2.2% to record low - Mar. 24, 2010


----------



## somdrenter

*Home prices heading for triple-dip*



> By Les Christie October 31, 2011: 5:37 AM ET
> 
> According to Fiserv, a financial analytics company, home values are expected to fall another 3.6% by next June, pushing them to a new low of 35% below the peak reached in early 2006 and marking a triple dip in prices.



Home prices heading for triple-dip - Oct. 31, 2011


----------



## jetmonkey

somdrenter said:


> Home prices heading for triple-dip - Oct. 31, 2011



Sweet, so my property taxes will be going down AMIRITE?!?!?


----------



## meddauna

jetmonkey said:


> Sweet, so my property taxes will be going down AMIRITE?!?!?



 You're funny! 

they'll do the same thing they did to my house i just bought. appraise it for 30k more than i paid for it.


----------



## glhs837

meddauna said:


> You're funny!
> 
> they'll do the same thing they did to my house i just bought. appraise it for 30k more than i paid for it.



Only 30? Mine is 60K over


----------



## somdrenter

*Home sales during housing bust worse than thought*



> By Les Christie @CNNMoney December 21, 2011: 10:29 AM ET
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Existing home sales during the housing bust were actually 14.3% worse than previously reported, a revision to Realtors' group numbers shows.
> 
> On Wednesday, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) revised home sale counts back to 2007 due to flaws in their original data analysis.



Home sales during housing bust worse than thought - Dec. 21, 2011


----------



## somdrenter

*Foreclosure sales still pummeling home prices*



> By Les Christie @CNNMoney December 21, 2011: 10:15 AM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Nearly five years into the crisis, foreclosures are still weighing heavily on home prices.
> 
> A whopping 46% of homes sold in November were either short sales or REOs -- as homes repossessed by lenders are called, according to a survey by Campbell/Inside Mortgage Finance.
> 
> One problem: Distressed homes sell for a lot less than homes sold by conventional sellers. The average price for a short sale (when borrowers owe the bank more than their homes are worth) was $209,000 in November. For a regular sale, the average was about $259,000.
> 
> The numbers are even worse for REOs, which averaged about $190,000 for properties in move-in condition.



Foreclosure sales still pummeling home prices - Dec. 21, 2011


----------



## Merlin99

somdrenter said:


> Foreclosure sales still pummeling home prices - Dec. 21, 2011


Why is this bad? It's getting prices back to the reasonable range.


----------



## Baja28

Merlin99 said:


> Why is this bad? It's getting prices back to the reasonable range.


  besides, why do I care?  My house has been paid for.  When I sell and move south in 15 years, I'll be livin large and renters will....... still be renting.


----------



## Beta84

Merlin99 said:


> Why is this bad? It's getting prices back to the reasonable range.



Exactly.  Prices might be low, but in this area they're still relatively high compared to what they're worth.  In other areas I could take 200k and get a REALLY nice place with some property.  Here?  I'd be lucky to get a townhouse in an average neighborhood.


----------



## Gilligan

Beta84 said:


> Exactly.  Prices might be low, but in this area they're still relatively high compared to what they're worth.  In other areas I could take 200k and get a REALLY nice place with some property.  Here?  I'd be lucky to get a townhouse in an average neighborhood.



? Housing prices have always been very senstitive to geographic/demographic factors. I could buy a killer estate in rural south VA where my sister lives for_ half _what my property here is worth. Could I _earn_ even half of what I do here? No..and neither can most anyone else. Hence we've just identified one of the key factors affecting housing values.

That said..can't wail until I retire. Zoom!..I'll be headed for "cheap property" country, you can bet.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> besides, why do I care?  My house has been paid for.  When I sell and move south in 15 years, I'll be livin large and renters will....... still be renting.


Heck Mike, with prices attempting to come back to a reasonable range of affordability, maybe more folks will see your under $800 mortgage payment and have the discipline to pay it off in 10 years.


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Heck Mike, with prices attempting to come back to a reasonable range of affordability, maybe more folks will see your under $800 mortgage payment and have the discipline to pay it off in 10 years.


I don't have a mortgage.  Paid it off a couple years ago.  But that is exactly what I did.  This is why I was an opponent of renting.


----------



## CrashTest

Merlin99 said:


> Why is this bad? It's getting prices back to the reasonable range.



Correct.  The only way rising home values are good is if YOUR home is only one going up in value.  If they're all going up, then it's meaningless.


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> I don't have a mortgage.  Paid it off a couple years ago.  But that is exactly what I did.  This is why I was an opponent of renting.


I thought we had established that you paid it off in 10 years and your (then) mortgage of under $800 was perhaps not indicative of an over inflated housing market?


----------



## somdrenter

*Home prices fall to 2002 levels*



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The housing market started off the new year with a thud. Home prices dropped for the fifth consecutive month in January, reaching their lowest point since the end of 2002.
> 
> The average home sold in that month lost 0.8% of its value, compared with a month earlier, and prices were down 3.8% from 12 months earlier, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index of 20 major markets.
> 
> 
> Home prices have fallen a whopping 34.4% from the peak set in July, 2006.



Home prices hit a 9-year low - Mar. 27, 2012


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Home prices hit a 9-year low - Mar. 27, 2012






> *Rents continue rising nationwide,* while hard-hit home values keep declining, according to real-estate website Zillow.
> A Rising Tide Lifts Rents, Sinks Home Values - Developments - WSJ





> March 13, 2012|By Alejandro Lazo, Los Angeles Times
> Home prices are tumbling to fresh lows, but new data show *the rental market is on an upswing, an early indicator that housing may be headed into recovery.
> *Rising rents may signal a housing market recovery - Los Angeles Times





> Unlike home prices, *rents have been rising,* up 2.4 percent in January from a year earlier, according to recent data, not adjusted for inflation, released by the Labor Department.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/b...partment-landlords-market.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Dakota

somdrenter said:


> Home prices hit a 9-year low - Mar. 27, 2012



2002 levels are actually better than I expected.  :shrug:  

I think 10-15-20 year mortgates are a good idea.... 30 years is just too long, IMO.


----------



## Namikazenaru

Dakota said:


> 2002 levels are actually better than I expected.  :shrug:
> 
> I think 10-15-20 year mortgates are a good idea.... 30 years is just too long, IMO.



If you are disciplined thoguh you can still pay off a 30 year loan in 15-20. I ended going with a 30 year loan so if something big comes up I can pay the 30 year payment and as long as things are goign well I can pay double.

Mortgage rates low, house prices are low, rent is going up (especially around here)

For the price of an apartment you can own the same amount of sq ft for even less.


----------



## Blister

This thread was started in 2007. Stating that tyou were stupid if you didn't buy then. I'd be willing to bet that the OP is a realtor or someone with properties to sell.


----------



## Chasey_Lane

Blister said:


> I'd be willing to bet that the OP is a realtor or someone with properties to sell.


----------



## glhs837

Blister said:


> This thread was started in 2007. Stating that tyou were stupid if you didn't buy then. *I'd be willing to bet *that the OP is a realtor or someone with properties to sell.



I'll take that bet OP is our very own Vrai, who, is not a realtor.


----------



## blazinlow89

We are up for lease renewal on our apartment, looking back we have spent over $24k on a one bedroom apartment.  This is ridiculous, we are very likely not renewing the lease.


----------



## Namikazenaru

blazinlow89 said:


> We are up for lease renewal on our apartment, looking back we have spent over $24k on a one bedroom apartment.  This is ridiculous, we are very likely not renewing the lease.



if that's for a year. holy $hit. That's about the mortgage with no down payment on a $330,000 house.


----------



## blazinlow89

Namikazenaru said:


> if that's for a year. holy $hit. That's about the mortgage with no down payment on a $330,000 house.



25 months.  Rent was in the range of 1050 a month or more.


----------



## glhs837

If you can get approved, there are some silly deals out there. Not to say whatever you buy might not still go down after you buy, but should come back up at some point I think.


----------



## Namikazenaru

Then add on a mortgage rate of 3.75 makes the deal that much more sweeter


----------



## blazinlow89

We closed on our first home on May 25th.  We are no longer shackled to an apartment, now we own what is being paid on.  At least when it is paid off I will have something to show for it.  

Interest rate of 3.75% too .


----------



## Namikazenaru

blazinlow89 said:


> We closed on our first home on May 25th.  We are no longer shackled to an apartment, now we own what is being paid on.  At least when it is paid off I will have something to show for it.
> 
> Interest rate of 3.75% too .



Congrats, I know the feeling just closed on my first home on may 4th. What area did you purchase at if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## blazinlow89

Namikazenaru said:


> Congrats, I know the feeling just closed on my first home on may 4th. What area did you purchase at if you don't mind me asking?



Lexington Park.  I am far enough away from everything that its quiet.  I would have liked to have been in a different area, but for the price it was well worth it.  2000 sqft house, .60 acres, fenced in, pretty much new everything and I have a garage so I will have man space.  I looked at new homes but they had no land.


----------



## Namikazenaru

blazinlow89 said:


> Lexington Park.  I am far enough away from everything that its quiet.  I would have liked to have been in a different area, but for the price it was well worth it.  2000 sqft house, .60 acres, fenced in, pretty much new everything and I have a garage so I will have man space.  I looked at new homes but they had no land.



Yeah I ended up building in lexington park. The land thing in lexington park is hard to come by. I looked at HBI for awhile for land but they had higher prices than I'd like and it was further out from base than the lexington Park areas.


----------



## glhs837

Lexington Park comprises a lot of different areas, some pretty remote. Nami, I know what you mean, we looked hard at the HBI place south of St Mary's City, but the lots, even the "larger" ones, had no real privacy. Silly things like +20K for  added space over the garage, just not worth it.


----------



## blazinlow89

glhs837 said:


> Lexington Park comprises a lot of different areas, some pretty remote. Nami, I know what you mean, we looked hard at the HBI place south of St Mary's City, but the lots, even the "larger" ones, had no real privacy. Silly things like +20K for  added space over the garage, just not worth it.



Our home was built in 1973, while it is older everything was replaced.  New electric, new plumbing, waterproofed basement inside and out, renovated kitchen, hardwood and ceramic tile floors, new carpet in the bedrooms, new vinyl siding.  Basement was 90% refinished, just needs some paint and trim work.  We did have to redo the deck but it came out freaking sweet.

I am still close enough to everything that only takes me 5-10 min to get to places.  Best part is I am close to work.


----------



## glhs837

I hear ya, BL. My "new" house was built in 86 or so. After leaving the house built to whatever passed for codes in the county in the 50s, was a joy to deal with standardized things put together the way you would expect. And built well, not by a rushed crew struggling to meet an impossible schedule using all builder grade stuff like the new subdivisions.

My commute is less than 10 minutes, 7 of those are on two lane roads


----------



## blazinlow89

glhs837 said:


> Lexington Park comprises a lot of different areas, some pretty remote. Nami, I know what you mean, we looked hard at the HBI place south of St Mary's City, but the lots, even the "larger" ones, had no real privacy. Silly things like +20K for  added space over the garage, just not worth it.



Our home was built in 1973, while it is older everything was replaced.  New electric, new plumbing, waterproofed basement inside and out, renovated kitchen, hardwood and ceramic tile floors, new carpet in the bedrooms, new vinyl siding.  Basement was 90% refinished, just needs some paint and trim work.  We did have to redo the deck but it came out freaking sweet.

I am still close enough to everything that only takes me 5-10 min to get to places.  Best part is I am close to work.


----------



## somdrenter

*Part deux?*

Now that we've had all this housing recovery; folks are back to work, have had salary increases to afford home prices without toxic mortgages and loose lending, is there a part 2?

The Fed is throttling back (supposedly) and interest rates are rising. Will interest rates ever return to historic norms? Pre-bubble, it wasn't uncommon to have a 10%+ interest rate, and that was with great credit. What if we see those types of rates in the next 5-10 years?

Will the average buyer continue to see his/her salary increase (as we have seen during this recovery) commensurate with interest rate increases to support continued price growth?


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> Now that we've had all this housing recovery; folks are back to work, have had salary increases to afford home prices without toxic mortgages and loose lending, is there a part 2?
> 
> The Fed is throttling back (supposedly) and interest rates are rising. Will interest rates ever return to historic norms? Pre-bubble, it wasn't uncommon to have a 10%+ interest rate, and that was with great credit. What if we see those types of rates in the next 5-10 years?
> 
> Will the average buyer continue to see his/her salary increase (as we have seen during this recovery) commensurate with interest rate increases to support continued price growth?


Ask me how much $$ I've socked away since paying off my mortgage 2 years ago then tell me what a fool I am for not having a mortgage or renting.


----------



## PJay

somdrenter said:


> Now that we've had all this housing recovery; folks are back to work, have had salary increases to afford home prices without toxic mortgages and loose lending, is there a part 2?
> 
> The Fed is throttling back (supposedly) and interest rates are rising. Will interest rates ever return to historic norms? Pre-bubble, it wasn't uncommon to have a 10%+ interest rate, and that was with great credit. What if we see those types of rates in the next 5-10 years?
> 
> Will the average buyer continue to see his/her salary increase (as we have seen during this recovery) commensurate with interest rate increases to support continued price growth?




Are you joking?

Recovery? What planet do you live on?


----------



## CrashTest

Baja28 said:


> Ask me how much $$ I've socked away since paying off my mortgage 2 years ago then tell me what a fool I am for not having a mortgage or renting.



What I would do is sell the house for whatever it's worth (perhaps $300,000), take that money and invest it into a fund earning 20% - 25% interest ($75,000 a year), pay $2,000 a month rent to live in the exact same type of house ($24,000 a year), and come out $50,000 a year ahead.


----------



## Vince

Baja28 said:


> Ask me how much $$ I've socked away since paying off my mortgage 2 years ago then* tell me what a fool I am for not having a mortgage *or renting.


Same here and I say   That house payment has been getting put into a nice retirement account.


----------



## czygvtwkr

There is something to be said for having a paid off house,  my mom is able to live on social security alone.  My dads retirement accounts and life insurance are just sitting there gaining value so I can get the half that the government doesn't take some day.


----------



## Baja28

CrashTest said:


> What I would do is sell the house for whatever it's worth (perhaps $300,000), take that money and invest it into a fund earning 20% - 25% interest ($75,000 a year), pay $2,000 a month rent to live in the exact same type of house ($24,000 a year), and come out $50,000 a year ahead.


How bout you PM me the name of that fund consistently earning 20% - 25% interest and I'll sell the house, take all my savings, pull my 401K (pay the penalty), redirect my deposits and sock everything I own into it.  TIA


----------



## CrashTest

Baja28 said:


> How bout you PM me the name of that fund consistently earning 20% - 25% interest and I'll sell the house, take all my savings, pull my 401K (pay the penalty), redirect my deposits and sock everything I own into it.  TIA



Right now, almost all of my 401k is in the _Wilshire 4500 Index Fund _which earned 36.6% for the past 52 weeks.

So if I had put $300,000 into last fund last year, I would have gained about $110,000 in that year.

https://www.google.com/#q=wilshire+4500


----------



## kwillia

CrashTest said:


> Right now, almost all of my 401k is in the _Wilshire 4500 Index Fund _which earned 36.6% for the past 52 weeks.
> 
> So if I had put $300,000 into last fund last year, I would have gained about $110,000 in that year.
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=wilshire+4500


Yeah, but won't that only be a real gain if you move it to somewhere safe before the crash wipes it all out? It's only a real gain if you can keep it, right?


----------



## CrashTest

kwillia said:


> Yeah, but won't that only be a real gain if you move it to somewhere safe before the crash wipes it all out? It's only a real gain if you can keep it, right?



Investing is work and I'm not saying rent versus own, versus this, versus that.  I'm just saying that if someone has $300,000+ of equity sitting in a house, which probably isn't going to appriciate much in the next 5 years due to Kenyanomics, that person should look at creative ways to make that kind of equity work for them.  Think like a mogul.


----------



## Baja28

CrashTest said:


> Right now, almost all of my 401k is in the _Wilshire 4500 Index Fund _which earned 36.6% for the past 52 weeks.
> 
> So if I had put $300,000 into last fund last year, I would have gained about $110,000 in that year.
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=wilshire+4500


That's a kick ass fund but who is savvy enough to predict it?  

If you or I could sustain 25% on our money, I'd quit my job and live on the interest. 

Fact is no one is that savvy.  My 401K did produce 26% last year (obviously I have an aggressive growth portfolio).    I even made $10K in one day a couple weeks ago but we all know that is not the norm and what goes up, WILL come down.  

The market cannot sustain this growth and I'm not willing to risk $300K in today's wacky financial world.


----------



## GURPS

my stock split twice since I got it .......


----------



## Monello

When I was investing I always wanted the price per share to be low.  My goal was to buy as many shares as I could afford.  As the price rose those shares cost me more money.  Then you sit and wait.  Hopefully when I'm ready to cash out, the price will be higher than what I paid.

So unless you are redeeming shares, you haven't 'lost' or 'gained' anything.  It's all paper profit or paper loss.  About the only thing you can do is say my portfolio is worth ###.

I don't think I'd go to a car dealer and say that I want the price to go up on the car I want to buy.


----------



## Grumpy

The recovery will last only as long as the presses at the bureau of engraving keep spitting out devalued dollars. The end is near...


----------



## ArkRescue

There are plenty of people who WANT to own a home and can't for a variety of reasons including they don't have the required 10 to 20% down-payment, or their credit isn't as great as it needs to be (now the standards are much higher than they were in the past), or they put in a contract on a house that didn't appraise for the sales price and the owner wouldn't reduce the sales price to the appraised value and the buyer didn't have the cash to bridge the gap between their financing and the contract price, or some other reason?

This is a great market to buy in, but talk to a few real estate agents and they can tell you many reasons that deals are falling apart.

I talk to a lot of people who want to buy, but a good number of them that tried had issues.  One gal is divorced but her EX paid late on joint debts so many times while they were separated that it will be a good 5 more years before she can get a mortgage.  *People - before you marry - consider that you need to have equal ground - if your credit sucks and his does too - no problem, but if you have good credit?  At least get someone with equal credit - otherwise you're BOTH gonna look bad if his is bad and you marry him.* 

Speaking of getting married .... No one should get married w/o making plans for a possible split.  It sounds bad but honestly it could save your butt later from being ruined by hi/hers issues, whether they be bad dental problems (saw over $13k go on that myself), or bad credit, and be careful to not have joint debt unless it is a home.  In MD the debt belongs to the person who's name is on it, so you have a few in your name only, and he has a few in his name only.  That way when you split up (if you do) there won't be a problem with having to make it equitable with lawyers and all, well except for the house.


----------



## ArkRescue

Monello said:


> When I was investing I always wanted the price per share to be low.  My goal was to buy as many shares as I could afford.  As the price rose those shares cost me more money.  Then you sit and wait.  Hopefully when I'm ready to cash out, the price will be higher than what I paid.
> 
> So unless you are redeeming shares, you haven't 'lost' or 'gained' anything.  It's all paper profit or paper loss.  About the only thing you can do is say my portfolio is worth ###.
> 
> I don't think I'd go to a car dealer and say that I want the price to go up on the car I want to buy.



The advice I got about 20-some years ago was to treat my 401k as a LONG term investment - setup a plan and let ER go for years and years .....

I managed to lose over $100k (most was from late 90's to mid 2000's) and I may have a whopping $20k left that is now in very conservative funds to be sure I don't lose that also.  I am doomed because $20k is NOT going to become $200k + between now and the next 20 years when I will want to retire.  I won't be living well on the SS money I get either (if I get any, if any is left).  Maybe I'll win the lottery ... yeah that's it .

I'm the perfect example of why you don't just ignore the statements and let it be a long term thing that will turn around from any losses w/o my help.  Had I let it continue, I would have lost it all.


----------



## blazinlow89

ArkRescue said:


> There are plenty of people who WANT to own a home and can't for a variety of reasons including they don't have the required 10 to 20% down-payment, or their credit isn't as great as it needs to be (now the standards are much higher than they were in the past), or they put in a contract on a house that didn't appraise for the sales price and the owner wouldn't reduce the sales price to the appraised value and the buyer didn't have the cash to bridge the gap between their financing and the contract price, or some other reason?
> 
> This is a great market to buy in, but talk to a few real estate agents and they can tell you many reasons that deals are falling apart.



There are plenty of options that do not require 10-20% down.  We used USDA and went in 0 down.  FHA offers 3.5%, and VA offers similar.  We did not try to get the biggest house we could be approved for either.  Credit score was not the highest either went in with around a 670.  

You are right that there are a lot of reason people may not be able to get one, we went in expecting the worst, but found a good lender.


----------



## ArkRescue

blazinlow89 said:


> There are plenty of options that do not require 10-20% down.  We used USDA and went in 0 down.  FHA offers 3.5%, and VA offers similar.  We did not try to get the biggest house we could be approved for either.  Credit score was not the highest either went in with around a 670.
> 
> You are right that there are a lot of reason people may not be able to get one, we went in expecting the worst, but found a good lender.



Yup and some people give up after the 1st try because they don't like rejection/failure.  If you want something you sometimes have to work hard at it - goodness knows nothing came to me easy in life.

There are some no money down loans for certain areas, some are revitalization efforts, some are for agricultural land that MD wants to remain as farmland/rural.  Having a very knowledgeable agent/broker makes all the difference in the world.  The ones who have been in the business many years and have kept up on all the changes and really strive to be the best.  They know what's out there and can inform you what you have available to you.  That's how I found out about various no money down loan programs.


----------



## ArkRescue

so I see this ad pop up on the forum:

    Rent To Own Homes $355/mo
GoRentToOwn.com
    Bad Credit OK, No Down Payment. Instant Access To Rent To Own Homes


Yeah if it could only be so easy for people ..... $355/mo?  where?  North Dakota?


----------



## ProfMoneyWise

The best way to buy a home is using the 100% down plan.  Yes, it can be done and is done more than we think.

The next best way is not to become house poor.  Keep in mind there is no shame in renting either.

The criteria I have for buying are:

1.  Determine I will be in the home for five years or more.

2.  Be debt-free

3.  Have a fully funded emergency fund of 3 - 6 months living expenses.

4.  Have at least 20% down to avoid PMI.

5.  Take on no more than a 15yr fixed loan where the total PITI+HOA (if applicable) does not exceed 25% of your take-home pay.

6.  Be prepared for 1% - 3% of your homes value to be spent yearly  on things that break, need gas, need planting, painted.

7.  Don't buy as an investment. Buy it because you like it and want to live there.  If you make money on it someday great but do not let that be your reason.

8.  Don't buy because someone told you to buy.  Make your own decisions.

Lastly, I believe if I cannot fathom paying off my house I am living in to much house.  As for taxes and insurance I like having paved roads, running water, and transferring risk to the insurance company to cover the bigger things that can go wrong.


----------



## b23hqb

I own mine, again, for the second time - lock stock, and bathrooms, and will remain that way.


----------



## ProfMoneyWise

b23hqb said:


> I own mine, again, for the second time - lock stock, and bathrooms, and will remain that way.



Good feeling too isn't it?


----------



## b23hqb

ProfMoneyWise said:


> Good feeling too isn't it?



You bet. Just pay the property taxes, and the county, insurance companies, etc., can't tell you what to do or what you have to have, or how much coverage.....


----------



## somdrenter

*Remember HAMP?*



> Nearly 783,000 homeowners whose mortgage rates were reduced under the government's Home Affordable Modification Program are going to see their rates increase over the next few years, which will likely lead some borrowers to re-default, a federal watchdog warned.



http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/real_estate/hamp-mortgage-resets/index.html


----------



## Baja28

somdrenter said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/real_estate/hamp-mortgage-resets/index.html


Unfortunately my rate cannot increase.  Why you ask?  Let me tell you.  
*

I DON'T HAVE A MORTGAGE BECAUSE I OWN THE MUTHER EFFER!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAHAA...*  

Keep on rentin' renter boy.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Will the next president be able to blame this on Obama or will it still be Bush's fault?


----------



## ArkRescue

*Buy or rent? Pros and cons to consider*

"WASHINGTON -- The online real estate company Trulia estimates that it's 34 percent cheaper to buy than rent a home in D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

But when it comes to the best financial bet between renting and buying, there are factors to consider. "

http://www.wtop.com/1415/3574929/Buy-or-rent-Pros-and-cons-to-consider


----------



## somdrenter

Baja28 said:


> Unfortunately my rate cannot increase.  Why you ask?  Let me tell you.
> *
> 
> I DON'T HAVE A MORTGAGE BECAUSE I OWN THE MUTHER EFFER!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAHAA...*
> 
> Keep on rentin' renter boy.



With a mortgage payment of less than $800 a month, I surely hope you've paid off your mortgage...


----------



## GURPS

somdrenter said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/real_estate/hamp-mortgage-resets/index.html



there was a story on WMAL this week, the Obama - you don't have to pay back your school loan ev'a program 

- well not really but if you get a fed / community organizer - job, the debt is wiped out after 10 yrs otherwise Private Industry it is 20 yrs

the program Obama said would ONLY cost 2 Billion has tripled to 8 billion and is rising 


so you can get 100k or more in student loans, pay on them for 10 yrs and poof gone .. tax payers eat the rest


----------



## ArkRescue

GURPS said:


> there was a story on WMAL this week, the Obama - you don't have to pay back your school loan ev'a program
> 
> - well not really but if you get a fed / community organizer - job, the debt is wiped out after 10 yrs otherwise Private Industry it is 20 yrs
> 
> the program Obama said would ONLY cost 2 Billion has tripled to 8 billion and is rising
> 
> 
> so you can get 100k or more in student loans, pay on them for 10 yrs and poof gone .. tax payers eat the rest



I elected the longest term for my student loan (BS) which was 25 years.  I hear you can't even discharge student loans in a bankruptcy, so I'd be surprised if they would REALLY let someone get away with not paying it off.  I'll be paying $300+ a month for another 16 years ........ even with a low interest rate (5% I think) the amount of the repayment doubles the original debt (deferred interest made that worse).  Depending on how long I work, I may never make more in income than I actually spent to get the education - something I should have considered before I started school I guess?  I somehow thought I'd be making way more than I do - but that's because the computer people at one time were making huge salaries and that didn't last.  All I did was add a degree to the work I was already doing in computers.  I never received the big salary jump I had been told I'd get once I had my degree.  Although, If I find myself in the market to find a new job, the degree will help me for sure.


----------



## FollowTheMoney

*Yeah right... YOU OWN NOTHING!!!*

Ownership... Ha!

To elaborate a little bit on the evil of (real estate) property tax, consider that "shelter" is a generally recognized necessity of life. What happens when
someone - say a family - is put out of their home because they cannot afford to pay the ever increasing tax on their home (that they
may have inherited for example)? What are they supposed to do then, go live under a bridge somewhere, children and all?

So what we have in the U.S. is an arbitrarily high tax, which has no basis in "ability to pay", levied on a necessity of life, and if you can't
pay it (and where are you supposed to get a job these days?), you and your family are ejected from your shelter, at gunpoint if necessary,
and apparently left to die of exposure to the elements.

That's some kind of real "American" "liberty and freedom" there, isn't it? You and your family are free to be either dead or a slave to government.

When you get a chance look at your deed, it says you are the "Tenant".  You own nothing, only control the interest in it! Just as the king
wants it. He grants you the land and house, but you must pay a tribute to him or he kicks you out and puts someone there that can pay.

Isn't this in part why we fought the Revolutionary War? Sure is.


----------



## sockgirl77

FollowTheMoney said:


> Ownership... Ha!
> 
> To elaborate a little bit on the evil of (real estate) property tax, consider that "shelter" is a generally recognized necessity of life. What happens when
> someone - say a family - is put out of their home because they cannot afford to pay the ever increasing tax on their home (that they
> may have inherited for example)? What are they supposed to do then, go live under a bridge somewhere, children and all?
> 
> So what we have in the U.S. is an arbitrarily high tax, which has no basis in "ability to pay", levied on a necessity of life, and if you can't
> pay it (and where are you supposed to get a job these days?), you and your family are ejected from your shelter, at gunpoint if necessary,
> and apparently left to die of exposure to the elements.
> 
> That's some kind of real "American" "liberty and freedom" there, isn't it? You and your family are free to be either dead or a slave to government.
> 
> When you get a chance look at your deed, it says you are the "Tenant".  You own nothing, only control the interest in it! Just as the king
> wants it. He grants you the land and house, but you must pay a tribute to him or he kicks you out and puts someone there that can pay.
> 
> Isn't this in part why we fought the Revolutionary War? Sure is.



So, people should rent?

You need to get laid.


----------



## blazinlow89

sockgirl77 said:


> So, people should rent?
> 
> You need to get laid.



Yep, because people that rent properties are immune to tax increases, therefore your rent will never go up.


----------



## Vince

Do away with taxes for those that are retired and on Social Security.  You've paid all your life, now you should be able to enjoy it and not pay taxes anymore.


----------



## ArkRescue

Vince said:


> Do away with taxes for those that are retired and on Social Security.  You've paid all your life, now you should be able to enjoy it and not pay taxes anymore.



 - saddens me to think of elderly people being evicted from their homes for property taxes - then again many would want their home in Grandma's name to save on property taxes .....


----------



## Baja28

FollowTheMoney said:


> Ownership... Ha!
> 
> To elaborate a little bit on the evil of (real estate) property tax, consider that "shelter" is a generally recognized necessity of life. What happens when
> someone - say a family - is put out of their home because they cannot afford to pay the ever increasing tax on their home (that they
> may have inherited for example)? What are they supposed to do then, go live under a bridge somewhere, children and all?
> 
> So what we have in the U.S. is an arbitrarily high tax, which has no basis in "ability to pay", levied on a necessity of life, and if you can't
> pay it (and where are you supposed to get a job these days?), you and your family are ejected from your shelter, at gunpoint if necessary,
> and apparently left to die of exposure to the elements.
> 
> That's some kind of real "American" "liberty and freedom" there, isn't it? You and your family are free to be either dead or a slave to government.
> 
> When you get a chance look at your deed, it says you are the "Tenant".  You own nothing, only control the interest in it! Just as the king
> wants it. He grants you the land and house, but you must pay a tribute to him or he kicks you out and puts someone there that can pay.
> 
> Isn't this in part why we fought the Revolutionary War? Sure is.


GMAFB!!  Oh how I love these Einsteins who think they are getting ahead by renting.  
OK genius, my PT's are $2,800 +- a year.  Way too much I agree but where are these folks you refer too who can't afford $233.00/month on a nice house they inherited?  I want first hand evidence of someone who was put out b/c they couldn't pay this tax.  I'll wait but won't hold my breath.


----------



## Baja28

ArkRescue said:


> - saddens me to think of elderly people being evicted from their homes for property taxes - then again many would want their home in Grandma's name to save on property taxes .....


A reverse mortgage would prevent anyone from being evicted.


----------



## FollowTheMoney

sockgirl77 said:


> So, people should rent?
> 
> You need to get laid.



You miss the point. It's about your shelter, your home. Regardless if you can afford it now. No one knows what comes tomorrow.
Your house is taxed regardless of your, or anyone's, ability to pay. Do not forget, in some states peoples homes are taxed at
over $10000.00 a year for an average, modest house, about 1900-2100sqft.
But hey, you want to continue your enslavement to the government and grovel for relief and continue to defend... fine.
Be a boot licker and continue to carry the chains that bound you. You think it's normal for a government to fiscally rape
you at every turn, and when you can't pay, carry your own weight... see ya, off the plantation you go.
But my message is sound and factual. 
This is not the America that survived the revolutionary war. There were no property taxes after. All lands reverted back to
those who held deed to their land. Property taxation (on your home) is relatively new.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

FollowTheMoney said:


> You miss the point. It's about your shelter, your home. Regardless if you can afford it now. No one knows what comes tomorrow.
> Your house is taxed regardless of your, or anyone's, ability to pay. Do not forget, in some states peoples homes are taxed at
> over $10000.00 a year for an average, modest house, about 1900-2100sqft.
> But hey, you want to continue your enslavement to the government and grovel for relief and continue to defend... fine.
> Be a boot licker and continue to carry the chains that bound you. You think it's normal for a government to fiscally rape
> you at every turn, and when you can't pay, carry your own weight... see ya, off the plantation you go.
> But my message is sound and factual.
> This is not the America that survived the revolutionary war. There were no property taxes after. All lands reverted back to
> those who held deed to their land. Property taxation (on your home) is relatively new.



Amen.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> GMAFB!!  Oh how I love these Einsteins who think they are getting ahead by renting.
> OK genius, my PT's are $2,800 +- a year.  Way too much I agree but where are these folks you refer too who can't afford $233.00/month on a nice house they inherited?  I want first hand evidence of someone who was put out b/c they couldn't pay this tax.  I'll wait but won't hold my breath.



There's a reason you're still so far left on the bell curve. You don't know chit about money either.


----------



## BOP

ArkRescue said:


> - saddens me to think of elderly people being evicted from their homes for property taxes - then again many would want their home in Grandma's name to save on property taxes .....



they did that in California back in the '70s with Prop 13.  That didn't work out as planned.


----------



## sockgirl77

FollowTheMoney said:


> You miss the point. It's about your shelter, your home. Regardless if you can afford it now. No one knows what comes tomorrow.
> Your house is taxed regardless of your, or anyone's, ability to pay. Do not forget, in some states peoples homes are taxed at
> over $10000.00 a year for an average, modest house, about 1900-2100sqft.
> But hey, you want to continue your enslavement to the government and grovel for relief and continue to defend... fine.
> Be a boot licker and continue to carry the chains that bound you. You think it's normal for a government to fiscally rape
> you at every turn, and when you can't pay, carry your own weight... see ya, off the plantation you go.
> But my message is sound and factual.
> This is not the America that survived the revolutionary war. There were no property taxes after. All lands reverted back to
> those who held deed to their land. Property taxation (on your home) is relatively new.



I look at it this way. My mortgage is HALF of what I was paying in rent. Even with taxes, I am still paying less. Keep in mind that by paying rent you are paying someone else's taxes. So, in a sense, you are paying taxes just as you would if you owned the home. If I were to lose my job today, I'd still have to provide shelter for my family. So that is really a moot point.


----------



## Vince

ArkRescue said:


> - saddens me to think of elderly people being evicted from their homes for property taxes - then again many would want their home in Grandma's name to save on property taxes .....


Not elderly....yet, but I take my Property Tax bill and go to the Court House every year, pay it in person and get a receipt.  It gets filed with all the others.  Someone says I didn't pay, "I think you made a mistake"  here's my receipt.


----------



## PrchJrkr

LibertyBeacon said:


> There's a reason you're still so far left on the bell curve. You don't know chit about money either.



OMG, OMG, OMG!!!

Baja, please address this asswipe. I just want a front row seat. Please?


----------



## GWguy

PrchJrkr said:


> OMG, OMG, OMG!!!
> 
> Baja, please address this asswipe. I just want a front row seat. Please?





I paid off my mortgage years ago, so all I pay is about $3200 in taxes.  Everything else I WOULD have been paying in mortgage or STILL WOULD BE PAYING IF RENTING is now going directly into my bank account.  Just bought a nice new truck, taking a long vacation, making upgrades to the house to increase it's SALE VALUE  and barely scratched what I put away from NOT PAYING INTO RENTING.

That saved money is MINE.  Haven't had to even consider touching my 401k, and may postpone applying for social security for years yet.


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> There's a reason you're still so far left on the bell curve. You don't know chit about money either.


Speaking of clueless,  LB

Please oh wise one (sorry, I couldn't type that with a straight face) , impart your great wisdom upon us.  Or do you have a cop to harass screaming like a baby about all the violations of your 4A rights.   

if it weren't for know it all's like you & FTM, us slum lords wouldn't have morons paying off our rental properties.  In fact, I may buy another.  Thank you!  

Now bend over and send me that rent check!


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> Speaking of clueless,  LB
> 
> Please oh wise one (sorry, I couldn't type that with a straight face) , impart your great wisdom upon us.  Or do you have a cop to harass screaming like a baby about all the violations of your 4A rights.
> 
> if it weren't for know it all's like you & FTM, us slum lords wouldn't have morons paying off our rental properties.  In fact, I may buy another.  Thank you!
> 
> Now bend over and send me that rent check!



Oh, rental properties!

BACK UP THE BRINKS TRUCK!

You are doing it wrong if you have to pay off anything. On the right side of the bell curve, we pay cash for houses. Starting to figure it out, Suze Orman?


----------



## MarieB

GWguy said:


> I paid off my mortgage years ago, so all I pay is about $3200 in taxes.  Everything else I WOULD have been paying in mortgage or STILL WOULD BE PAYING IF RENTING is now going directly into my bank account.  Just bought a nice new truck, taking a long vacation, making upgrades to the house to increase it's SALE VALUE  and barely scratched what I put away from NOT PAYING INTO RENTING.
> 
> That saved money is MINE.  Haven't had to even consider touching my 401k, and may postpone applying for social security for years yet.



That's awesome 

But people are moving more now for work. I was reading and article not long ago about how renting is becoming more popular now, as it gives people more flexibility.

I don't think it's a one size fits all argument.  People have different lifestyles and situations.

On a side note, I would run those figures for SS before making a decision


----------



## LibertyBeacon

MarieB said:


> I was read and article not long ago about how renting is becoming more popular now, *as it gives people more flexibility*.



Well, that's one way to spin it.

Yet another way would to be recognize that real unemployment is around 25%, probably on the way to 30% before the bottom falls out of this thing. No one can afford to buy a house because no one is working. Combine that with the giving away of mortgages to anyone with a pulse, and having to ratchet back on that banking (and the entire cottage industry to include land developers and construction firms) windfall.

My objection is not to homeownership in and of itself. Rather on the contrary. My objection is to using leverage and paying a vig for money that does nothing but provide a roof over my head. My house is not an investment; it serves a utilitarian purpose: to give me a place to live.

Delay gratification. Rent young and save, save, save aggressively. Then pay cash for the house of your choice, house of your dreams in fact.


----------



## sockgirl77

LibertyBeacon said:


> Oh, rental properties!
> 
> BACK UP THE BRINKS TRUCK!
> 
> You are doing it wrong if you have to pay off anything. On the right side of the bell curve, we pay cash for houses. Starting to figure it out, Suze Orman?



You have a few hundred thousand just sitting around?


----------



## sockgirl77

LibertyBeacon said:


> Well, that's one way to spin it.
> 
> Yet another way would to be recognize that real unemployment is around 25%, probably on the way to 30% before the bottom falls out of this thing. No one can afford to buy a house because no one is working. Combine that with the giving away of mortgages to anyone with a pulse, and having to ratchet back on that banking (and the entire cottage industry to include land developers and construction firms) windfall.
> 
> My objection is not to homeownership in and of itself. Rather on the contrary. My objection is to using leverage and paying a vig for money that does nothing but provide a roof over my head. My house is not an investment; it serves a utilitarian purpose: to give me a place to live.
> 
> Delay gratification. Rent young and save, save, save aggressively. Then pay cash for the house of your choice, house of your dreams in fact.



Judging by your math, 70-75% of people are working.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

sockgirl77 said:


> Judging by your math, 70-75% of people are working.



You're right. Then I suppose there's nothing to be concerned about. Carry on.


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> Oh, rental properties!
> 
> BACK UP THE BRINKS TRUCK!
> 
> You are doing it wrong if you have to pay off anything. On the right side of the bell curve, we pay cash for houses. Starting to figure it out, Suze Orman?


  Yea I figured it out.  I've been away from these boards for awhile but nothing changed.  You're still a clueless dolt.  Now run along and make sure you have enough money in the bank for your rent. I'll peek at my online account in anticipation of your rent check coming to me, but first I'm taking a mini fishing vacation because I don't have to worry about a $2,500.00 rent/mort. payment being due. Thanks again pal!


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> Yea I figured it out.  I've been away from these boards for awhile but nothing changed.  You're still a clueless dolt.  Now run along and make sure you have enough money in the bank for your rent. I'll peek at my online account in anticipation of your rent check coming to me, but first I'm taking a mini fishing vacation because I don't have to worry about a $2,500.00 rent/mort. payment being due. Thanks again pal!


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> Well, that's one way to spin it.
> 
> Yet another way would to be recognize that real unemployment is around 25%, probably on the way to 30% before the bottom falls out of this thing. No one can afford to buy a house because no one is working. Combine that with the giving away of mortgages to anyone with a pulse, and having to ratchet back on that banking (and the entire cottage industry to include land developers and construction firms) windfall.
> 
> My objection is not to homeownership in and of itself. Rather on the contrary. My objection is to using leverage and paying a vig for money that does nothing but provide a roof over my head. My house is not an investment; it serves a utilitarian purpose: to give me a place to live.
> 
> Delay gratification. Rent young and save, save, save aggressively. Then pay cash for the house of your choice, house of your dreams in fact.


Yes because every young person is making SOOOOO much money that they can pay the rent AND sock away a fortune to go buy their dream house in 30 years.  Wait....didn't you just say the unemployment rate is 25%??  What's the guarantee they'll even live to see old age?  Like I say, if stupid hurt, you'd be doubled over in pain. 

ORRRRR..... they could take advantage of the very low interest rates *now*, buy a nice house, own it in 15, 20-25 years, use the equity however they see fit, send the old payment to *their* bank account, take out another mortgage, buy a rental and have some sap like you pay that off for them too. Gee, why didn't *I* think of that??  Oh wait....


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> Yes because every young person is making SOOOOO much money that they can pay the rent AND sock away a fortune to go buy their dream house in 30 years.  Wait....didn't you just say the unemployment rate is 25%??  What's the guarantee they'll even live to see old age?  Like I say, if stupid hurt, you'd be doubled over in pain.
> 
> ORRRRR..... they could take advantage of the very low interest rates *now*, buy a nice house, own it in 15, 20-25 years, use the equity however they see fit, send the old payment to *their* bank account, take out another mortgage, buy a rental and have some sap like you pay that off for them too. Gee, why didn't *I* think of that??  Oh wait....



Let me guess: you're paying 3% on your money and you think that's just fantastic!


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> Yes because every young person is making SOOOOO much money that they can pay the rent AND sock away a fortune to go buy their dream house in 30 years.  Wait....didn't you just say the unemployment rate is 25%??  What's the guarantee they'll even live to see old age?  Like I say, if stupid hurt, you'd be doubled over in pain.
> 
> ORRRRR..... they could take advantage of the very low interest rates *now*, buy a nice house, own it in 15, 20-25 years, use the equity however they see fit, send the old payment to *their* bank account, take out another mortgage, buy a rental and have some sap like you pay that off for them too. Gee, why didn't *I* think of that??  Oh wait....



And good on ya, by the by. It's good for the little people to stroke themselves and pretend they are The Donald Trump every now and then. Makes you feel like you're getting a piece of that pie. And if it gets ya laid, all the better.

I'm extra hungry today Mr. Pizza Man. Can you cut that pie into 16 slices instead of the usual 8?


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> Let me guess: you're paying 3% on your money and you think that's just fantastic!


Wrong again moron.  YOU are paying 3% on my money.  YOU are also paying a couple hundred per month OVER what the actual PITI is.  Thanks again pal.


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> And good on ya, by the by. It's good for the little people to stroke themselves and pretend they are The Donald Trump every now and then. Makes you feel like you're getting a piece of that pie. And if it gets ya laid, all the better.
> 
> I'm extra hungry today Mr. Pizza Man. Can you cut that pie into 16 slices instead of the usual 8?


This is all you have?  Seriously?  Sucks to to have your ass handed to you on a platter by a little person huh?


----------



## sockgirl77

Baja28 said:


> This is all you have?  Seriously?  Sucks to to have your ass handed to you on a platter by a little person huh?



Sausage, delivered. Thanks.


----------



## Baja28

sockgirl77 said:


> Sausage, delivered. Thanks.


I'll be delivering your sausage right away maam.


----------



## sockgirl77

Baja28 said:


> I'll be delivering your sausage right away maam.



Good boy.


----------



## Hank

Vienna Sausage


----------



## sockgirl77

Hank said:


> Vienna Sausage



Kielbasa.


----------



## czygvtwkr

LibertyBeacon said:


> Well, that's one way to spin it.
> 
> Yet another way would to be recognize that real unemployment is around 25%, probably on the way to 30% before the bottom falls out of this thing. No one can afford to buy a house because no one is working. Combine that with the giving away of mortgages to anyone with a pulse, and having to ratchet back on that banking (and the entire cottage industry to include land developers and construction firms) windfall.
> 
> My objection is not to homeownership in and of itself. Rather on the contrary. My objection is to using leverage and paying a vig for money that does nothing but provide a roof over my head. My house is not an investment; it serves a utilitarian purpose: to give me a place to live.
> 
> Delay gratification. Rent young and save, save, save aggressively. Then pay cash for the house of your choice, house of your dreams in fact.



I waited a bit to buy a house, but it was to make sure that my job wasn't cut in the last BRAC.  I will tell you that I paid $12k a year in federal income taxes as a renter,  the next year I paid $5k and to top it off my income had gone up.  I bought a house that had a payment of about 25% of my monthly net income, after all the numbers were ran I came out ahead by quite a bit over renting.  The payment/insurance and property taxes are more stable than my rent was also.  

I am a big advocate that a house is terrible as an investment, but great as a place to call home, but even after 25 years or so and my house is worth $0 I still come out ahead of the game.


----------



## sockgirl77

I get to paint my walls, have chickens, plant a garden, paint the ugly red shutters black, and bust down walls.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> Wrong again moron.  YOU are paying 3% on my money.  YOU are also paying a couple hundred per month OVER what the actual PITI is.  Thanks again pal.



I don't rent, dummy.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

czygvtwkr said:


> I am a big advocate that a house is terrible as an investment, but great as a place to call home, but even after 25 years or so and my house is worth $0 I still come out ahead of the game.



Ding! Ding! Ding!


----------



## sockgirl77

LibertyBeacon said:


> I don't rent, dummy.



Yes, we know. You paid cash for your house.


----------



## CrashTest

sockgirl77 said:


> You have a few hundred thousand just sitting around?



Yes


----------



## Baja28

czygvtwkr said:


> I waited a bit to buy a house, but it was to make sure that my job wasn't cut in the last BRAC.  I will tell you that I paid $12k a year in federal income taxes as a renter,  the next year I paid $5k and to top it off my income had gone up.  I bought a house that had a payment of about 25% of my monthly net income, after all the numbers were ran I came out ahead by quite a bit over renting.  The payment/insurance and property taxes are more stable than my rent was also.
> 
> I am a big advocate that a house is terrible as an investment, but great as a place to call home, but even after 25 years or so and my house is worth $0 I still come out ahead of the game.


Shhhhh..... you're ruining her argument worse than she is.



LibertyBeacon said:


> I don't rent, dummy.


Of course you don't.    Yet you hang around here trying to one up me (and failing miserably) arguing why it's stupid to have a mortgage.

Now off you go to complain about the police state and how you're so tyrannized.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> Shhhhh..... you're ruining her argument worse than she is.
> 
> Of course you don't.    Yet you hang around here trying to one up me (and failing miserably) arguing why it's stupid to have a mortgage.



Yes, if you are under 45 and don't have a substantial net worth (which is attainable, even on modest income), taking a mortgage is among the top 3 dumbest financial decision one can make. Using leverage is great if you are a commercial concern investing in plant and equipment and you expect a tangible return, i.e., business income off of those investments. As much as I loathe Warren Buffet, this quote, attributed to him is just perfect: "If you’re smart, you don’t need leverage. If you’re dumb, you have no business using it."

Go ahead, and use leverage. Leverage yourself 20 or 30:1 to rent a sh!tty townhouse or two to a bunch of crackheads. Hell if you're lucky, you might even find some Section 8 famblees and enjoy your "investments" courtesy of the taxpayer. Leverage to the hilt for all I care. Just understand there's a reason I'm inching further and further right on the wealth bell curve than you ever will.

I bet you've called more than one of those late night "get rich off of real estate" infomercials, haven'tcha? How much you into them for?


----------



## sockgirl77

LibertyBeacon said:


> Yes, if you are under 45 and don't have a substantial net worth (which is attainable, even on modest income), taking a mortgage is among the top 3 dumbest financial decision one can make. Using leverage is great if you are a commercial concern investing in plant and equipment and you expect a tangible return, i.e., business income off of those investments. As much as I loathe Warren Buffet, this quote, attributed to him is just perfect: "If you’re smart, you don’t need leverage. If you’re dumb, you have no business using it."
> 
> Go ahead, and use leverage. Leverage yourself 20 or 30:1 to rent a sh!tty townhouse or two to a bunch of crackheads. Hell if you're lucky, you might even find some Section 8 famblees and enjoy your "investments" courtesy of the taxpayer. Leverage to the hilt for all I care. Just understand there's a reason I'm inching further and further right on the wealth bell curve than you ever will.
> 
> I bet you've called more than one of those late night "get rich off of real estate" infomercials, haven'tcha? How much you into them for?



He's not under 45.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

sockgirl77 said:


> He's not under 45.



Oh, I bet she is.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

The other thing you could do if you really want to benefit from a strong rental market is make some equity investments in public companies whose business it is to rent property out. Equities outperform real estate as investing goes, so if you really believe in a strong rental market, equity investing is a better approach. There are good and profitable ones out there, and they are probably better than you at finding and evaluating good investment properties. This is what they do for a living. Plus, as these are equity shares, they are more liquid than physical real estate. AND you can much more easily geographically diversify if you want to take advantage of a burgeoning market in Nebraska, for example.

Would you leverage yourself to make those equity investments? I'm guessing no sane and rational person would. So why leverage to buy a house which be default is not a great investment?


----------



## sockgirl77

LibertyBeacon said:


> Oh, I bet she is.



 I was thinking that you were referring to Baja.


Carry on.


----------



## MarieB

czygvtwkr said:


> I waited a bit to buy a house, but it was to make sure that my job wasn't cut in the last BRAC.  I will tell you that I paid $12k a year in federal income taxes as a renter,  the next year I paid $5k and to top it off my income had gone up.  I bought a house that had a payment of about 25% of my monthly net income, after all the numbers were ran I came out ahead by quite a bit over renting.  The payment/insurance and property taxes are more stable than my rent was also.
> 
> I am a big advocate that a house is terrible as an investment, but great as a place to call home, but even after 25 years or so and my house is worth $0 I still come out ahead of the game.




That's how I've always looked at it, as a home but not an investment. Not that I never hoped to make money at some point


----------



## czygvtwkr

LibertyBeacon said:


> Would you leverage yourself to make those equity investments? I'm guessing no sane and rational person would. So why leverage to buy a house which be default is not a great investment?



That is a poor comparison,  you buy a house to live in, to make it a home.  Taking a mortgage out isn't inherently stupid unless you do it stupidly.  

If equities are going to be going down long term,  say their business model was disrupted like buggy whip makers were when the automobile became popluar you need to get out and you have not only lost money due to the equity going down but you lost the cost of borrowing that money and other than burn stock certificates or wipe your butt with them there is nothing they are useful for except making you money.  However,  a house you can still live, love, and make it a home when it is headed down because that is why you bought it in the first place (or should have been).  

Careful planning can make debt work for you if it makes sense.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

czygvtwkr said:


> That is a poor comparison,  you buy a house to live in, to make it a home.  Taking a mortgage out isn't inherently stupid unless you do it stupidly.



That's sort of my point. You seem to have a sensible approach to home ownership, but ask yourself: how many people do you think view their home as an "investment"?


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> Yes, if you are under 45 and don't have a substantial net worth (which is attainable, even on modest income), taking a mortgage is among the top 3 dumbest financial decision one can make. Using leverage is great if you are a commercial concern investing in plant and equipment and you expect a tangible return, i.e., business income off of those investments. As much as I loathe Warren Buffet, this quote, attributed to him is just perfect: "If you’re smart, you don’t need leverage. If you’re dumb, you have no business using it."
> 
> Go ahead, and use leverage. Leverage yourself 20 or 30:1 to rent a sh!tty townhouse or two to a bunch of crackheads. Hell if you're lucky, you might even find some Section 8 famblees and enjoy your "investments" courtesy of the taxpayer. Leverage to the hilt for all I care. Just understand there's a reason I'm inching further and further right on the wealth bell curve than you ever will.
> 
> I bet you've called more than one of those late night "get rich off of real estate" infomercials, haven'tcha? How much you into them for?


I'm not sure if this is your dumbest post ever or the one where you said you wouldn't talk to the cop while pulled over.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> I'm not sure if this is your dumbest post ever or the one where you said you wouldn't talk to the cop while pulled over.



Speaking of dumb posts, how's that radiation from Fukushima making out?


----------



## Baja28

LibertyBeacon said:


> Speaking of dumb posts, how's that radiation from Fukushima making out?


You got me there. 

The difference between you & I is I admit when I'm wrong.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Baja28 said:


> You got me there.
> 
> The difference between you & I is I admit when I'm wrong.



OK, big guy.


----------

